Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Globalcom, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n

Globalcom, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n

Case Date: 03/11/2004
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-02-3605, 1-03-0068 cons. Rel

FOURTH DIVISION
March 11, 2004


Nos. 1-02-3605, 1-03-0068 consolidated.

 

GLOBALCOM, INC.,

                       Petitioner,

v.

ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION and
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC.,

                       Respondents.



ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC.,

                       Petitioner,

v.

ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION and
GLOBALCOM, INC.,

                       Respondents.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Petitions for Review of
the Orders of the Illinois
Commerce Commission in
Ill. C.C. Docket No. 02-0365.

 

JUSTICE GREIMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Globalcom brought this action against Illinois Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AmeritechIllinois, now known as SBC Illinois (SBC) before the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC orCommission). Globalcom alleged that SBC was knowingly engaging in anticompetitive conductintended to unlawfully restrict competition in the telecommunications market in Illinois. Globalcom's prayer for relief sought injunctive relief, actual damages, attorney fees, and costs. TheCommission issued what essentially amounted to a "split decision": it dismissed Globalcom's claimsbased upon SBC's federal tariff for a lack of jurisdiction, and ruled in favor of Globalcom on onlytwo of its claims based upon an Illinois tariff. SBC has appealed the issues it lost on the meritswhile Globalcom appeals only in pursuit of greater damages and more attorney fees on the twoissues where it prevailed.

Essentially, this case boils down to an examination of whether SBC knowingly engaged inconduct that was anticompetitive to a rival telecommunications competitor. Specifically, twoaspects of SBC's conduct fall under this scrutiny: (1) charging early termination fees to Globalcomdue to Globalcom's premature cancellation of a contract with SBC for certain services; and (2)requiring Globalcom to pay rent to store its equipment in an SBC facility as a condition ofobtaining a new service from SBC. We conclude that the evidence does not support a finding ofliability based upon the imposition of early termination fees. However, we also find the evidencedoes support a finding of liability for the "rental" requirement SBC imposed upon Globalcom. Accordingly, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand the cause to the ICC for a properredetermination of attorney fees and other incurred costs.

In May of 2000, Globalcom initiated a fast-track proceeding against SBC pursuant tosection 13-514 of the Public Utilities Act (Act) (220 ILCS 5/13-514 (West 2002)). Globalcomclaimed that the terms upon which SBC offered a certain combination of unbundled networkelements (UNEs), known as an "Enhanced Extended Link" (EELs), were anticompetitive inviolation of section 13-514 of the Act. The Commission rejected many of Globalcom's claims, butagreed with Globalcom in two respects.

SBC's obligation to provide UNEs to competing local exchange carriers (CLECs) arosefrom the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (FCA) (47 U.S.C.