came on 7 May 1991. The launch advertising projected the principles of fairness and value. British talk show host Michael Aspel was chosen from a list of 200 to front the advertisements. The advertisements raised were objected to by Telecom who took issue with the application of the word "fair". Two years later Telecom took Clear to court with its advertising headline: "If you want to get the best deal on tolls from Telecom you'd be a Clear customer." The Telecom number was then printed underneath inviting customers to ask for two months of free toll calls to match the current Clear offer. Litigation Clear also sought an injunction to prevent Telecom from misusing a list of Clear customers supplied to Telecom for implementation of no-code access. By mid-1993, Telecom was processing Clear customers at a rate of 3000 lines a week. Telecom began writing to these Clear customers as a part of the marketing campaign, Clear was granted an injunction. Clear and Telecom were awaiting an Appeals Court decision over the terms for access to the local customer. The original December 1992 court decision found Telecom in breach of Section 36 of the Commerce Act, which prohibits the use of a dominant position for the purpose of preventing or deterring competition. The section underlies the government's telecommunications policy to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. The two breaches were for not supplying Clear with Direct Dial-In (DDI) numbers which would have allowed Clear to start local service operations, and for asking for too much money for interconnecting Clear to its network. The decision also indicated Telecom's "Baumol-Willig" economic formula - whereby new entrants should compensate Telecom for lost profits - would not be anti-competitive in the future and a framework was proposed which, it was hoped by the court decision, would promote negotiations between Clear and Telecom. Clear took its objection to this finding back to Court in August 1993 but the resolution of these issues, all related to the cost and terms of access to various parts of the Telecom system, is still awaited. Telecom has argued that the prices it has charged Clear to use its network were fair because of the increments it needed to add to provide the capacity Clear requested. Clear's view has been that Telecom, in the absence of an effective referee has behaved like a de facto regulator. For example, it has practised price bundling