Supreme Court to hear AT&T DSL anti-trust case

More than two decades ago, a federal judge ordered the breakup of AT&T after concluding Ma Bell's monopolistic control of local and long distance voice telephone service violated federal anti-trust law.

Now AT&T as the successor to SBC Communications faces another anti-trust suit that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take up this week. The high court will review a Sept. 11, 2007 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in which the appellate court affirmed a U.S. district court ruling allowing an anti-trust action brought against SBC/AT&T by several Internet service providers to proceed.

The ISPs allege SBC/AT&T 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 complain.

The case, Linkline Communications et. al. v. SBC California, et. al. represents an important test of federal policy under the 1996 law intended to foster robust market competition and speed timely deployment of high speed Internet access to all Americans.

However the suit suggests SBC/AT&T's actions in response to the law have had just the opposite effect. By cutting its DSL prices to the bone in order to deter competing ISPs -- SBC/AT&T was promoting residential DSL for as little as $13 a month in late 2006-- it lacked adequate revenue to finance the expansion of DSL within its service territory. That led to the formation of monstrous broadband black holes filled with frustrated customers unable to order wireline broadband from AT&T at any price.

U.S. Supreme Court asks for government brief in anti-trust suit against AT&T

The Associated Press reports the U.S. Supreme Court has asked Solicitor General Paul Clement for his opinion on whether the high court should review a Sept. 11 ruling by Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals allowing an anti-trust suit against AT&T by four California Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to go forward.

The ISPs contend AT&T jacked up wholesale prices it charged 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.

According to the AP, the court's request for Clement's opinion shows at least some of the justices are interested in taking up the case, Linkline Communications et. al. v. SBC California, et. al.

From a market perspective, the suit spotlights a major roadblock in the implementation of federal law enacted in 1996 designed to speed the deployment of advanced telecommunications services including broadband Internet access. If the allegations of the ISPs are correct, they explain to a large extent why AT&T has not fully built out its broadband infrastructure because it set its DSL prices too low to cover the cost of doing so in much of its service area, leaving sprawling broadband black holes.

Watch for AT&T to continue to mount a scorched earth legal strategy to prevent this lawsuit from proceeding on the merits since it could effectively turn the clock back to 1984 when the break up of AT&T was ordered by a federal court. Tellingly, another big telco that could also find itself facing anti-trust litigation, Verizon, has filed in brief in the case in support of AT&T.

It's only natural: U.S. Supreme Court rejects anti-trust action targeting big telcos

Bloomberg reports the U.S. Supreme Court today tossed out a lawsuit alleging telcos Verizon, AT&T Inc. and Qwest violated anti-trust law by colluding not to compete in each other's service areas.

The high court found there was no evidence of collusion. Rather, the justices ruled 7-2, the fact that the former baby bells hardly ever directly compete is a natural consequence of their business models. "There is no reason to infer that the companies had agreed among themselves to do what was only natural anyway," Justice David Souter wrote for the court.