|
gptkbp:instance_of
|
gptkb:legal_case
|
|
gptkbp:appeals_to
|
No appeal was taken
|
|
gptkbp:area
|
antitrust law
|
|
gptkbp:case_number
|
No. 82-1
|
|
gptkbp:case_outcome
|
AT& T was required to divest its local exchange service.
|
|
gptkbp:case_significance
|
landmark antitrust case
|
|
gptkbp:case_types
|
antitrust litigation
|
|
gptkbp:consequences
|
increased competition in telecommunications
set precedent for future antitrust actions
|
|
gptkbp:court
|
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:United_States
AT& T Company
|
|
gptkbp:decided_by
|
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
|
|
gptkbp:duration
|
1974 to 1982
|
|
gptkbp:historical_context
|
deregulation of the telecommunications industry
|
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
|
United States v. AT& T Co.
|
|
gptkbp:impact
|
market competition
|
|
gptkbp:involved_parties
|
regional Bell operating companies
|
|
gptkbp:is_a_basis_for
|
gptkb:Sherman_Antitrust_Act
|
|
gptkbp:judges
|
gptkb:Judge_Harold_Leventhal
|
|
gptkbp:key_issues
|
monopoly power of AT& T
|
|
gptkbp:legal_outcome
|
AT& T's monopoly was challenged
|
|
gptkbp:legal_representation
|
gptkb:Police_Department
|
|
gptkbp:legislation
|
gptkb:Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
|
|
gptkbp:outcome
|
breakup of AT& T
restructuring of the telecommunications market
|
|
gptkbp:precedent
|
subsequent antitrust cases
influenced future telecommunications regulations
|
|
gptkbp:public_reaction
|
mixed reactions from consumers and businesses
|
|
gptkbp:related_to
|
gptkb:Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
|
|
gptkbp:result
|
divestiture of Bell System
|
|
gptkbp:significance
|
impact on telecommunications industry
|
|
gptkbp:year
|
gptkb:1982
|
|
gptkbp:bfsParent
|
gptkb:United_States_v._Missouri_Pacific_Railroad_Co.
|
|
gptkbp:bfsLayer
|
5
|