Back to the future: How Title II litigation could spark antitrust actions against AT&T and Verizon

In 1984, AT&T was split into seven regional companies under a consent decree to settle a 1974 antitrust lawsuit brought by the U.S. federal government, United States v. AT&T, aimed at busting Ma Bell’s monopoly over local and long distance telephone service. Three decades later, AT&T has through a series of mergers and acquisitions reassembled itself into a telecommunications behemoth, rivaled in size only by Verizon, which was formed out of NYNEX and Bell Atlantic, two of the AT&T regional operating companies.

Now as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission considers classifying Internet-based telecommunications as a common carrier utility service under Title II of the Communications Act, the stage is being set for another potential massive antitrust court case.

Here’s how it might play out. Both AT&T and Verizon vow they will litigate to block the FCC if it opts to put in place common carrier regulation as recently urged by President Barack Obama. If that happens, it could spark complaints to Obama’s Justice Department from core content providers like Netflix and transport layer providers like Level 3 Communications that the monopolies that AT&T and Verizon enjoy over residential Internet service in their respective service territories violate the Sherman Antitrust Act and restrain interstate commerce. The Justice Department could then opt to initiate antitrust lawsuits as logical counter actions to the telcos' lawsuits against the FCC.

In the antitrust actions, the complainants could conceivably point to disputes with the two big telcos over interconnection arrangements and allege the telcos are engaging in anti-competitive behavior by deliberately degrading services delivered to their end user consumers while wholly denying other consumers services by redlining landline-delivered Internet services in selected neighborhoods and streets. They could demand the courts order the FCC to require the telcos to open their last mile networks to competitors pursuant to the 1996 amendment of the Communications Act. Or sell them off to smaller regional providers or local governments or telecom cooperatives.

No antitrust issue in ISP suit vs. AT&T, U.S. Supreme Court rules

Reuters reports the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against several Internet Service Providers who brought an antitrust suit against AT&T in 2003 claiming the big telco's pricing policies on DSL service constituted uncompetitive market conduct.

The ISPs alleged AT&T and its predecessor, SBC Communications, maintained unreasonably high wholesale access charges to ISPs to deliberately thwart them from competing with SBC/AT&T for Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) customers as permitted under the line sharing provisions of the federal Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. Ma Bell then lowballed prices on her own DSL offerings, making it impossible for the ISPs to compete on price, the ISP plaintiffs complained.

Federal appeals court rejects telco's bid to dismiss anti-trust action brought by competing ISPs

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a bid by SBC Communications (now AT&T) to toss out a federal anti-trust action brought by four California Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The ISPs sued the telco claiming it jacked up wholesale prices charged competing ISPs for access to its lines in order to subject the ISPs to a "pricing squeeze" as part of a scheme to drive consumers to SBC's proprietary retail DSL services.

The federal appellate court decision affirms a U.S. district ruling that the suit could proceed as an anti-trust action under the Sherman Antitrust Act. SBC unsuccessfully argued that the action was barred by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004). In Trinko, the Supreme Court held that the Sherman Act doesn't apply to Verizon's failure to deal fairly with a competing ISP. A customer of one of Verizon's competitors alleged Verizon engaged in anticompetitive practices by discriminatorily delaying orders placed by customers of Verizon’s competitors that Verizon was required to fill by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Sept. 11 ruling comes as AT&T and other telcos have requested the Federal Communications Commission to relieve them from the requirement that they continue making their lines available to competing ISPs under the 1996 Act, according to this recent post at Broadband Reports.com. The FCC is expected to act on the requests this week.

The full ruling by the Ninth Circuit in Linkline Communications et. al. v. SBC California, et. al. can be read here.