TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW AND REGULATION
Communications 597B/CCLaw 994
Syllabus (Spring, 2011)
Instructor:
Professor Rob Frieden
102 Carnegie Building
863-7996; E-mail:
Class Hours: Tues./Thurs. 1:00-2:15 p.m. (258 Katz Carlisle/241
Katz UP)
Office Hours: Monday 9-11 a.m.; Wed.
Course Materials:
The readings for the class are available as World Wide Web links and portions of Benjamin, Lichtman, Shelanski and Weiser, TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW AND POLICY
(2nd ed. 2006) and the
2010 supplement (optional as I will provide web links).
Overview
Careers in telecommunications and information processing require interdisciplinary skills including the ability to integrate an understanding of law with policy making components that include economics, technology management, business imperatives, the public interest, and politics. This course aims to present, investigate, and debate ongoing or anticipated conflicts in specific telecommunications law and policy issues. The resulting confrontations may stem from technological innovation, real or perceived changes in the marketplace, or the imperatives of prevailing regulatory, political, and economic philosophies. Conflict resolution often results from persuasive advocacy, coalition building and accommodation of outsiders with new perspectives or entrepreneurial visions, rather than solely applying legal precedent. But at other times, even entrepreneurs, who have devised a superior product or service, fail to achieve market success, because the regulatory process hinders, or obstructs commerce.
Course Format
We will examine and debate a series of spectrum management, broadcasting, cable television, common carrier, Internet, resource allocation, and technology planning issues. Students will prepare for each class by reading the assigned materials and generally taking responsibility to understand, or pose questions about the positions of all major constituencies and stakeholders involved. I value class participation very highly. You can bring computers into the classroom for purposes of taking notes only.
In light of the mixed composition of students in this course, as well as the interdisciplinary nature of the material covered, you may find yourself at both a comparative advantage and disadvantage. I will emphasize the legal aspects, but you will find much of the materials require an understanding of the technologies used. Law students will see elements of administrative, antitrust, law & economics, constitutional (First Amendment) and other law courses addressed in the cases we will examine. Telecommunications students already may have reviewed some of our cases, albeit not at the level of scrutiny we will use.
Final Exam or Paper
The final, “open-book” exam for this course will examine issues we have covered extensively in class. During the exam, you may access any written materials, notes, books, and outlines. However you may not use any electronic device including cellphones. You may use a computer as a word processor, but for no other purpose.
In lieu of a final exam, you can prepare and possibly present in class a paper (20-25 pages) that examines a telecommunications or information policy issue of your choice. You must review the recent scholarly and trade literature on the chosen paper topic. Your paper should demonstrate a clear understanding of the primary issues at stake, and it should go further by suggesting how to resolve problems. In preparing to write this kind of paper you should expand your search to include case law, journal articles and World Wide Web sites.
The litmus test of a good paper will be whether it makes a contribution to the body of knowledge on a topic, rather than merely distill what is already available. Please type your papers. You should comply with the following schedule to ensure ample time to prepare a worthy project:
Fifth week of classes: Propose a topic in a one paragraph abstract.
Ninth week of classes: Deliver to me an outline and bibliography of primary source materials you will use.
Introduction to
Telecom Law and Policy (Jan. 11, 13)
Assignments:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW AND POLICY
[hereinafter TLP] pp. 14-15, 30- 37, 198-208,
437-450, 703-711 and 905-917
We begin the course by examining the legal and regulatory classification of all the different media and services covered in the course: broadcasting, cable television, print, telephone and the Internet. Traditionally laws and regulations, along with their judicial interpretation, have used a “silo” based approach that assumes near mutually exclusivity, e.g., telecommunications service or information service) applies different regulations. For example, broadcast regulation impacts content, industry structural and business while telephone, common carrier regulation primarily addresses price and availability of service. Throughout the course we will need to keep in mind the impact of technological and market convergence on service-specific laws and regulations.
Recommended Reading:
Susan
P. Crawford, Transporting Communications,
89 B.U. L. Rev. 871 (June, 2009).
Anthony
E. Varona, Toward a Broadband Public
Interest Standard, 61
Admin. L. Rev. 1 (Winter, 2009).
Marvin
Ammori, Beyond Content Neutrality:
Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech, 61 Fed. Comm.
L.J. 273 (March, 2009).
Jack M. Balkin, Free Speech
and Press in the Digital Age, 36 PEPP. L. Rev. 427 (March, 2009).
Richard
S. Whitt, Evolving Broadband Policy:
Taking Adaptive Stances to Foster Optimal Internet Platforms, 17 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 417 (2009).
Kevin Ryan, Communications Regulation--Ripe for Reform, 17
COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 771 (2009).
Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts and Stephen Wolff, A Brief History of the Internet, Internet Society; available at: http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml.
Christopher S. Yoo, The Rise and Demise of the Technology-Specific Approach to the First
Amendment, 91 GEO. L.J. 245 (2003).
The Role of the Federal Communications Commission and Its Intellectual/Policy Drivers Jan. 18 podcast
Assignments:
TLP pp. 51-66
Recommended
TLP 2010 Supplement pp. 8-16
Rob Frieden, Case Studies in Abandoned Empiricism and the Lack of Peer Review at the Federal Communications Commission, 8 J. TELECOMM & HIGH TECH L. 277-312 (2010); available at: http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V8I2/JTHTLv8i2_Frieden.PDF;
Philip J. Weiser, Institutional Design, FCC Reform, and the Hidden Side of the Administrative State, 61 ADMIN. L. REV. 675 (Fall, 2009).
Kevin
Ryan, Communications Regulation--Ripe for
Reform, 17 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 771 (2009).
Richard
S. Whitt, A Horizontal Leap
Forward: Formulating A New Communications Public Policy Framework Based on the
Network Layers Model, 56 FED.
COMM. L.J. 587 (May, 2004).
Spectrum Management (technology strategies) Jan 20 podcast; Jan. 25, 27
Assignments:
New America Foundation, The Citizen’s Guide to the Airwaves (2003); available at: http://www.newamerica.net/files/airwaves.pdf
New America Foundation, J.H. Snider, The Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy
(2005); available at: http://www.newamerica.net/files/archive/Pub_File_1555_1.pdf
Dale N. Hatfield, Technical Underpinnings of Spectrum
Management, available at: http://www.gcbpp.org/files/Conferences/Spectrum4-25-2008/spectrum_hatfield_slides.pdf
TLP pp. 69-77, 83-105;
Recommended Reading:
Benjamin
Lennett, Sascha D. Meinrath, Seven Key
Options For Spectrum Allocation And Assignment, 14 J. INTERNET L. No. 3, 3
(Sep. 2010).
Thomas W. Hazlett, A Law & Economics Approach to Spectrum Property Rights:
A Response to Weiser and Hatfield, 15 Geo.
Mason L. Rev. 975 (June, 2008).
Philip
J. Weiser & Dale Hatfield, Spectrum
Policy Reform and the Next Frontier of Property Rights, 15 GEO. MASON L.
REV. 549 (2008).
Jerry
Brito, The Spectrum Commons in Theory and
Practice, 2007 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1 (2007).
Thomas
W. Hazlett and Matthew L. Spitzer, Advanced
Wireless Technologies and Public Policy, 79
Spectrum Management (administrative strategies) Feb. 1, 3
Assignments:
TLP pp. 67-69, 77-83, 130-142, TLP 2010 supp. 18-28, 42-56, and 28-40 or:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-260A1.pdf
(¶¶1-49);
http://www.broadband.gov/plan/5-spectrum/
Secs.5.1, 5.3, 5.6); and
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.doc.
(¶¶1-13, 189- 225).
Recommended Reading:
Philip
J. Weiser and Dale
N. Hatfield, Policing the Spectrum Commons, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 663 (Nov.,
2005).
Thomas W. Hazlett, Spectrum Tragedies,
22 YALE J. ON REG. 242 (Summer, 2005).
Kevin
Werbach, Supercommons: Toward a Unified
Theory of Wireless Communication, 82 TEX. L. REV. 863 (March, 2004).
Jeremiah
Johnston, The
Broadcast Regulation (economic and structural) Feb. 8
Assignments:
TLP pp. 336-345, 389-392, 403-434.
Scan the Susan
Crawford Blog for reasons why the FCC should block the Comcast- NBC Universal
merger, e.g.,
http://scrawford.net/blog/why-comcastnbcu-matters/1428/;
Scan the Free State
Foundation Blog for reasons why the FCC should approve the Comcast-NBC Universal merger, e.g.,
Recommended Reading:
Ronald
J. Krotoszynski, Jr. , The Irrelevant
Wasteland: An Exploration of Why Red Lion Doesn't Matter (Much) in 2008, The
Crucial Importance of the Information Revolution, and the Continuing Relevance
of the Public Interest Standard in Regulating Access to Spectrum, 60 ADMIN.
L. REV. 911(Fall, 2008).
Sean
Michael McGuire, Media Influence and the Modern American
Democracy: Why the First Amendment Compels Regulation of Media Ownership, 4
CARDOZO PUB. L. POL'Y & ETHICS J. 689 (Aug., 2006).
John F.
Sturm, Time for Change on Media
Cross-Ownership Regulation, 57 FED. COMM. L.J. 201 (2005).
C. Edwin
Baker, Media Concentration: Giving up on
Democracy, 54 FLA. L. REV. 839, (2002).
Broadcast Regulation (content) Feb. 10, 15
Assignments:
TLP pp. 208-217,
227-237, 254-266, 298-300; TLP 2010 Supp. 57-66, or FCC vs. Fox Television
Stations, 556 U.S. ___ , 129 S.Ct. 1800 (2009) available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-582.ZS.html
Recommended Reading:
Sandra Braman, The Ideal v. the Real in Media Localism: Regulatory Implications, 12 COMM. L. & POL'Y 231 (Summer, 2007).
Philip
M. Napoli and Sheea T. Sybblis, Access to Audiences as a First Amendment
Right: Its Relevance and Implications for Electronic Media Policy, 12 VA.
J.L. & TECH 1 (Winter, 2007).
Adam
Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting?
Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, 15
COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 431(2007).
Joshua
B. Gordon,
(Sep., 2006).
Emerging Multi-channel Video Programming Distribution Marketplace
(Direct Broadcast Satellite, Cable Television, IPTV) Feb. 17, 22
Assignments:
TLP pp. 247-254, 450-463,
463-472, 514-530, 569-585;
TLP 2010 Supp. 97-110,
or Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir.
2008); available at: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0230p-06.pdf.
Recommended Reading:
Matthew
S. Schwartz, A Decent Proposal: The
Constitutionality of Indecency Regulation on Cable and Direct Broadcast
Satellite Services, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 17 (Spr., 2007).
Robert
W. Crandall, J. Gregory Sidak, and Hal J. Singer, Does Video Delivered Over a Telephone
Network Require a Cable Franchise?, 59 FED. COMM. L.J. 251 (March, 2007).
William
D. Rahm, Watching Over the Web: A
Substantive Equality Regime for Broadband Applications, 24 YALE J. on REG.
1 (Winter, 2007).
Telephony Regulation--Tech primer, history, AT&T Divestiture Feb. 24
Assignments:
TLP pp. 713-724,
724-739
Telephony Regulation—Rate regulation, incentive regulation and
universal service
March 1
Assignments:
TLP pp. 747-769
Recommended
Howard
A. Shelanski, Adjusting Regulation to
Competition: Toward a New Model for
Jonathan E. Nuechterlein & Philip J. Weiser, DIGITAL CROSSROADS 99-108
(2005).
Telephony Regulation-- Telecommunications Act of 1996—initiatives and
failures, promoting local exchange competition, interconnection and network
unbundling
Assignments:
TLP pp. 771-781, 799-825,
828-848, 787-789
Recommended
Gerald
W. Brock, Interconnection Policy and
Technological Progress, 58 FED. COMM. L.J. 445 (June, 2006).
Robert
C. Atkinson, Telecom Regulation for the
21st Century: Avoiding Gridlock, Adapting to Change, 4 J. TELECOMM. &
HIGH TECH. L. 379 (Spr., 2006).
Telephony Regulation—Universal Service reform, impact of Voice over the
Internet Protocol telephony March 17
Assignments:
TLP pp. 863-881, 1028-1047,
TLP 2010 supp. 233-244, 244-251
or review: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/051069P.pdf;
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-1276a.pdf
Recommended Reading:
For technical background on how VoIP works see Intel, White Paper, IP Telephony Basics, available at: http://www.intel.com/network/csp/resources/white_papers/4070web.htm; Susan Spradley and Alan Stoddard, Tutorial on Technical Challenges Associated with the Evolution to VoIP, Power Point Presentation, available at: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/tutorial/9-22-03_voip-final_slides_only.ppt.
Linda A. Rushnak, Is Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) Subject to Regulation Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996? 17 Albany L.J. Sci,. & TECH. 213 (2007).
Rob Frieden, Killing With Kindness: Fatal Flaws in the $6.5 Billion Universal Service Funding Mission and What Should be Done to Narrow the Digital Divide, 24 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J., No. 2, 447 (2006).
Milton L. Mueller, Jr., Universal
Service: Competition, Interconnection, and Monopoly in the Making of the
American Telephone System (1997). Mark C. Del Bianco, Voices
Past: The Present and Future of VoIP Regulation, 14 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 365
(2006).
Amy L.
Leisinger, If It Looks Like a Duck: The Need for
Regulatory Parity in VoIP Telephony, 45 WASHBURN L.J. 585 (Spring, 2006).
Jerry
Ellig and Alastair Walling, Regulatory
Status of VoIP in the Post-Brand X
World, 23 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 89 (No. 2006)
Stimulating Access to Affordable Broadband Service March 22
Assignments:
National Broadband Plan, Executive Summary, available at: http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/;
TLP 2010 Suppl. 185-192, or review National Broadband Plan, Ch. 8, available
at: http://www.broadband.gov/plan/8-availability/
Recommended Reading:
Dale N.
Hatfield, The Challenge of
Increasing Broadband Capacity, 63 FED. COMM. L.J.
43 (Dec. 2010).
Charles M. Davidson, Michael J. Santorelli &Thomas Kamber, Broadband Adoption: Why It Matters and How It Works, 19-SPG MEDIA L. & POL'Y 15 (Spring, 2010).
Daniel L. Brenner, Creating Effective Broadband Network Regulation, 62 FED. COMM. L.J. 13
(Jan. 2010).
Anthony E. Varona, Toward a Broadband Public Interest Standard, 61 ADMIN. L. REV. 1
(Winter, 2009).
Robert D. Atkinson, The Digital Broadband Migration: Information
Policy For The Next Administration, 7 J. TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 1
(Winter, 2009).
Internet Regulation—which regulatory model applies? March 24
Assignments:
TLP pp. 927-935
Recommended
James B. Speta, The Shaky Foundations of the Regulated Internet, 8 J. TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH, L. 101 (Winter 2010).
Kevin Werbach, Off the Hook, 95 CORNELL L.
REV. 535 (Mar. 2010).
Anthony E. Varona, Toward a Broadband Public Interest Standard, 61 AD. L. REV. 1 (Winter
2009).
Jack M. Balkin, Free Speech and Press in the Digital Age, 36 PEPPERDINE L. REV. 427
(March, 2009).
Kevin Werbach, The Centripetal Network: How the Internet Holds Itself Together, and the Forces Tearing It Apart, 42 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 343 (Dec. 2008).
Jonathan Zittrain, A History of Online Gatekeeping, 19 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 253 (Spring, 2006).
Kevin Werbach, The Federal Computer Commission, 84 N.C. L. REV. 1 (Dec., 2005).
Jonathan Zittrain, Internet Points of Control, 44 B.C. L. REV. 653 (2003).
Advanced Services Regulation—scope of Title I “ancillary jurisdiction”;
regulation of information services, regulatory asymmetry, further problems with
silo regulation, impact of technological and marketplace convergence March 29, April 5
Assignments:
TLP pp. 955-972, 990-1007
Recommended
Daniel F. Spulber & Christopher S. Yoo, Rethinking Broadband Internet Access, 22 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 1
(Fall, 2008).
Ryan K.
Mullady, Regulatory Disparity: The
Constitutional Implications of Communications Regulations That Prevent
Competitive Neutrality, 2 U. PITT. J. TECH. L. & POL’Y 4 (Spring,
2007).
Howard
A. Shelanski, Adjusting Regulation to
Competition: Toward a New Model for U.S. Telecommunications Policy.” 24 YALE JOURNAL ON REGULATION 55 (Winter
2007).
International Telecommunication
Union, What Rules for IP-enabled NGN?, Workshop (
Rob Frieden, What Do Pizza Delivery and Information
Services Have in Common? Lessons From Recent Judicial and Regulatory Struggles
with Convergence, 32
J. Steven Rich, Brand X and the Wirline Broadband Report and Order: The Beginning of the End of the Distinction Between Title I and Title II Services, 58 FED. COMM. L.J., No. 2, 221 (April, 2006).
Network Neutrality April 7, 12
Assignments:
TLP pp. 1012-1028, Appropriate
Framework for Broadband
Access to the Internet
over Wireline Facilities. Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd. 14986 (2005); available at:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf;
TLP 2010 Supp. 215-219
or review: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201004/08-1291-1238302.pdf.
Preserving the Open Internet,
GN Docket No. 09-191, Report and Order (rel. Dec. 23, 2010); available
at:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.doc.
Recommended
Adam Candeub & Daniel John McCartney, Network Transparency: Seeing the Neutral
Network, 8 NW. J. TECH. &
INTELL. PROP. 228 (Spring 2010).
Lee L. Selwyn & Helen E.
Golding, Revisiting the Regulatory Status
of Broadband Internet Access: A Policy Framework for Net Neutrality and an Open
Competitive Internet, 63 FED. COMM. L.J. 91 (Dec. 2010).
Courtney Erin Smith, Net Neutrality, Full Throttle: Regulation Of Broadband Internet Service Following The Comcast/Bittorrent Dispute, 50 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 569 (2010).
Marvin Ammori, Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content-Based Promotion of
Democratic Speech, 61 FED. COMM. L.
REV. (March 2009).
Jennifer L. Newman, Keeping the
Internet Neutral: Net Neutrality and Its Role in Protecting Political
Expression on the Internet, 31 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT L.J. 153 (Fall,
2008).
Sascha
D. Meinrath &Victor W. Pickard, Transcending
Net Neutrality: Ten Steps Toward an Open Internet, 6 J. Internet L. 1,
No. 12 (Dec. 2008).
Philip J. Weiser, The Next
Frontier For Network Neutrality, 60 Admin. L. Rev. 273 (Spring, 2008).
Moran
Yemini, Mandated Network Neutrality And
The First Amendment: Lessons From Turner And a New Approach, 13 Va. J.L. & Tech 1 (Winter,
2008).
Rob
Frieden, Network Neutrality or Bias?--Handicapping the Odds for a Tiered and Branded
Internet, 29
Rob Frieden, Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Solutions to the Network Neutrality Debate, 1 INT’L J. COMMS. (2007); available at: http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/160/86.
Brett
Frischmann & Barbara van Schewick, Yoo’s
Frame and What It Ignores: Network Neutrality and the Economics of an Information Superhighway, 47 JURIMETRICS
J. (forthcoming); available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014691.
Barbara
van Schewick, Towards an Economic
Framework for Network Neutrality Regulation, 5 J.
ON TELECOM. & HIGH TECH. L. 329 (Winter, 2007)
T. Randolph Beard, George S.
Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky &
Lawrence J. Spiwak, Network Neutrality and Industry
Structure, 29
Edward W. Felten, Nuts
And Bolts Of Network Neutrality, Practicing Law Institute, 24th Annual
Institute on Telecommunications Policy & Regulation, 887 PLI/PAT 317 (Dec.
2006).
Bill D.
Herman, Opening Bottlenecks: On Behalf Of
Mandated Network Neutrality, 59 FED. COMM. L.J. 103 (Dec., 2006).
J. Gregory Sidak, A Consumer-Welfare Approach to Network
Neutrality Regulation of the Internet, 2 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 349
(Sep. 2006).
Christopher S. Yoo, Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion, 94 GEO. L.J. 1847 (2006).
Craig McTaggart, Was The Internet Ever Neutral?, paper
presented at the 34th Research Conference on Communication, Information and
Internet Policy, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, Virginia
(rev. Sep. 30, 2006); available at: http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2006/593/mctaggart-tprc06rev.pdf.
Christopher S. Yoo, Beyond Network Neutrality, 19 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 1, (2005).
Tim Wu, Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, 2 J. TELECOM & HIGH TECH L. 141 (2005); available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=388863.
Adam Thierer, Are ‘Dumb Pipe’ Mandates Smart Public Policy? Vertical Integration, Net Neutrality, and the Network Layers Model, 3 J. TELECOM. & HIGH TECH. L. 275 (2005).
Christopher S. Yoo, Would Mandating Broadband Network Neutrality Help or Hurt Competition? A Comment on the End-to-End Debate, 3 J. on TELECOM. & HIGH TECH. L. 23, 51 (2004).
Mark A.
Lemley and
Telecommunications Merger Review April 14
Assignments:
TLP pp. 1055-1078; TLP 2010 supp. 259-271 or http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269275A1.pdf;
see also, http://www.cybertelecom.org/docs/attbsconditions.htm;
TLP 2009 supp. 234-237, or http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/March/08_at_226.html.
Recommended
Philip J. Weiser, Reexamining
the Legacy of Dual Regulation: Reforming Dual Merger Review by the DOJ and the
FCC, 61 Fed. Comm. L.J. 167 (Dec. 2008).
Jim Chen, The Echoes of Forgotten Footfalls: Telecommunications Mergers at the Dawn of the Digital Millennium, 43 HOUSTON L. Rev. 1311 (Spr. 2007).
The Role (if any) of Antitrust Enforcement in Telecommunications April 19
Assignments:
TLP pp. 1091-1096; Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v.
Linkline Comms., Inc. 129 S.Ct. 1109 (2009); available at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-supreme-court/2009/02/25/162057.html
Recommended Reading:
Christian Evans, Price-Squeeze Claims are No Longer Cognizable Pursuant to § 2 of the
Sherman Act Absent an Antitrust Duty to Deal at the Wholesale Level or
Predatory Pricing at the Retail Level: Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline
Communications, Inc., 12 DUQUESNE BUS. L. J. 291 (Summer, 2010).
Erik N. Hovenkamp, The Viability of Antitrust Price Squeeze Claims, 29 AZ. L. REV. 273
(Summer 2009).
Marina Lao, Networks,
Access, and “Essential Facilities”:From Terminal Railroad to Microsoft,
Philip J. Weiser, Regulating Interoperability: Lessons From
AT&T, Microsoft, and Beyond, 76 ANTITRUST L.J. 271 (2009).
Spencer Weber Waller, Areeda, Epithets, and Essential Facilities, 2008 WIS. L. REV. 359.
Daniel A. Crane, Technocracy and Antitrust, 86 TEX. L. REV. 1159 (May, 2008).
Brett Frischmann, Revitalizing Essential Facilities, 75 ANTITRUST L.J. 1 (2008).
Timothy
J. Brennan, Essential Facilities and
Trinko: Should Antitrust and Regulation be Combined?, 61 FED. COMM. L.J.
133 (Dec. 2008).
Adam
Candeub, Trinko and Re-Grounding the Refusal to Deal
Doctrine, 66 U. PITT. L. REV. 821 (Summer, 2005).
Howard
A. Shelanski, Antitrust Law as Mass Media
Regulation: Can Merger Standards Protect The Public Interest?, 94 CAL. L.
REV. 371 (March, 2006).
Joseph Farrell & Philip
J. Weiser, Modularity, Vertical Integration, and Open Access
Policies: Towards a Convergence of Antitrust and Regulation in the Internet Age,
17 HARV. L. & TECH. 85 (2003).
Wrap Up April 21