Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { ?s ?p "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Pacific Bell d/b/a AT&T did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act when it charged other Internet providers a high fee to buy space on its phone lines to deliver an Internet connection. The court ruled that where there is no duty to deal at the wholesale level and no predatory pricing at the retail level, a firm is not required to price both of these services in a manner that preserves its rivals’ profit margins.This case was initiated by Internet service providers (ISP), alleging that incumbent telephone companies that owned infrastructure and facilities needed to provide digital subscriber line (DSL) service monopolized and attempted to monopolize regional DSL market. The ISP's claimed that the telephone companies accomplished this by squeezing the providers' profits by charging them high wholesale price for DSL transport and charging consumers low retail price for DSL Internet service. Ultimately, the court noted that this case as not moot, but that it was not clear that the providers had unequivocally abandoned their price-squeeze claims, and prudential concerns favored answering the question presented."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Pacific_Bell_Telephone_Co._v._linkLine_Communications,_Inc. abstract "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Pacific Bell d/b/a AT&T did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act when it charged other Internet providers a high fee to buy space on its phone lines to deliver an Internet connection. The court ruled that where there is no duty to deal at the wholesale level and no predatory pricing at the retail level, a firm is not required to price both of these services in a manner that preserves its rivals’ profit margins.This case was initiated by Internet service providers (ISP), alleging that incumbent telephone companies that owned infrastructure and facilities needed to provide digital subscriber line (DSL) service monopolized and attempted to monopolize regional DSL market. The ISP's claimed that the telephone companies accomplished this by squeezing the providers' profits by charging them high wholesale price for DSL transport and charging consumers low retail price for DSL Internet service. Ultimately, the court noted that this case as not moot, but that it was not clear that the providers had unequivocally abandoned their price-squeeze claims, and prudential concerns favored answering the question presented.".