04 October 2005

Antitrust suit against the "Baby Bells"

Here was an article late yesterday in Forbes.com regarding an antitrust suit. The case is Twombly vs. Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Qwest, SBC and Verizon. Here is the text of the decision. I have not had a chance to review the case yet. Given the pace at which these cases normally proceed, it is doubtful that we will see any outcome on this anytime soon.

What do you think about the merits of the case? If there is no apparent evidence that the defendants actively tried to deter entrants using their market power, do you think that the mere fact of dominant market share is grounds for a suit like this?

1 comment:

Mohamed said...

I wonder why each of the companies operate in its own geographical area and do not compete against each other?

The incumbents have such a dominant share of the market in their respective geographical areas and this makes it less viable for a new entrant to compete.

Some of the merits to the case are:
1. The fact that the Baby Bells do not compete against each other.
2. Having a dominant market share can create opportunities to stifle competition.