To provide service to consumers, cable companies must typically execute contracts, known as franchise agreements, with local municipalities authorizing the companies to run cable wires and other infrastructure over public rights-of-way. The plaintiffs claimed that, from 1999 to the present, Comcast engaged in a strategy of clustering, a practice by which it either purchased competitors’ franchise agreements in the Philadelphia DMA or swapped those agreements for ones in other parts of the country. That clustering allegedly increased Comcast’s market share in the Philadelphia region from 24 percent in 1998 to 70 percent in 2007. Plaintiffs claimed that Comcast violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring with competitors to leverage this market share to raise prices and deter other cable providers, known as overbuilders, from entering the Philadelphia market.
To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.
Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at email@example.com