We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 11

CFI upholds fines to Deutsche Telekom

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • European Union, Germany
  • -
  • May 27 2008

The Court of First Instance (CFI) has ruled to uphold the EC’s finding of abuse of dominance by Deutsche Telekom

Supreme Court accepts cert over telecommunications competition case

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 3 2011

The Supreme Court has agreed to resolve a circuit split caused by the Sixth Circuit's decision in Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Covad Comms. Co., No. 07-2469.pdf (consolidated with Isiogu v. Michigan Bell (10-329) for Supreme Court review

The Court of Appeal rules against Competition Appeal Tribunal's retroactive MTR fee setting

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 30 2010

The Court of Appeal ("CoA") has ruled that the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") could not order The Office of Communications ("Ofcom") to backdate a reduction in the termination rates mobile companies can charge

CAT publishes CC's determinations on LLU and WLR price control matters in Carphone Warehouse appeals

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 19 2010

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) is considering determinations made by the Competition Commission before giving a final ruling in the appeal by the Carphone Warehouse against the Office of Communications (Ofcom

European Court of Justice dismisses Deutsche Telekom "margin squeeze" appeal

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • European Union, Germany
  • -
  • October 31 2010

Confirming the General Court's ruling of 10 April 2008, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has dismissed Deutsche Telekom's (DT) appeal against a Commission decision which found DT had abused its dominant position in the German telecoms market between 1998 and 2001

BT and Everything Everywhere appeal against Ofcom's determination of dispute about termination charges for 0845 and 0870 calls

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 31 2010

On 18 October the CAT published notices by BT and Everything Everywhere to appeal Ofcom's decision in relation to termination charges for 0845 and 0870 calls

Overturning the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court rules that telephone companies must provide access to their competitors at cost

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 9 2011

In Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, holding that state utility commissions can require established telephone companies to provide smaller competitors access to their network at cost

CAT publishes orders and transcripts in 080 and 08450870 termination charges appeals

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 30 2010

On 5 November the CAT published the transcript of a case management conference in relation to three appeals brought by BT and Everything Everywhere against Ofcom regarding the dispute over termination charges for 080 and 08450870 numbers, detailed in our October bulletin

Will the Supreme Court side with the Sixth Circuit and against the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits on telecommunications monopoly question?

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 30 2011

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in the case of Talk America, Inc v Michigan Bell Telephone Co. to address, in plain terms, "Whether state utility commissions may require major telephone companies (like AT&T and Verizon) to provide smaller competitors access to certain parts of their network facilities at cost instead of at market rates."

Sixth Circuit denies Kentucky commission's attempts to regulate AT&T

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 27 2012

On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit upheld a district court decision which found that the Kentucky Public Service Commission (“Commission”) had wrongly interpreted two federal regulations and was preempted from bringing state law claims against AT&T Kentucky