Pay-Per-Call Rule Review: Reponse to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 16 C.F.R. Part 308, FTC File No. R611016 #1.2

Submission Number:
Richard C. Bartel
Communications Venture Services, Inc
Initiative Name:
Pay-Per-Call Rule Review: Reponse to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 16 C.F.R. Part 308, FTC File No. R611016
Matter Number:



These comments are filed pursuant to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published October 30, 1998 (F.Reg. Vol 63, No. 210, pp. 58524-58568) with regard to proposed amendments to 16 C.F.R. 308. This is an amended supplement to our previous filing(s).


308.2 (g) Definitions: Definitions should include the term "charge for transmission of the call" (47 U.S.C. 228(i)(1)(B)), and define the charge for transmission to be:

  • if the carrier or an affiliate is the information services provider, the actual cost to the carrier of provisioning the transport and switching for the call transport, or
  • the actual billed and collected revenue paid to the transmission carrier(s) transmitting the call, after any rebate, commission, bulk discount, kick-back, or other benefit realized or to be realized to the provider or an affiliate or any insider or party-in-interest of the provider or affiliate, as a result of the transmission(s), and further which charge is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and relevant regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and any applicable international standard or recommended practice.

308.2 (g)(3)(ii): The trigger charge should not be an "average", but a set amount of $ 2.00 per call or $0.25 per minute. "Average" is not verifiable and does not constrain the upper range. A maximum of 20 times the actual "charge for transmission" could also be set as an umbrella maximum, thus building an incentive for providers to minimize transmission charges below $0.10/minute, reasonable for both domestic and international provisioning. Most voice calls average 2.5 minutes (non pay-per-call), and data 25 minutes (i.e. Internet Service Providers).

In addition, the information services restrictions should not be limited to "audio".

Presubscription agreements should be written, between the information service provider and the subscriber.

308.2(b)(9): Two or more calls to an information service provider should not raise a presumption of a presubscription agreement or membership. Membership and presubscription agreements should be in writing and mutually binding with benefits attached which go beyond the call(s) themselves (i.e. membership card, meetings, newsletter, etc.).

308.2(g)(3)(iii): The "tariff" exemption for directory services by a common carrier or it's affiliate should not allow a tariff to become a bar to enforcement by FCC or FTC. A tariff is not a permit or license or adjudicated matter (absent timely objection and an evidentiary proceeding), but only a "Notice" filing. The FTC or FCC should be able to proceed against a directory service of a common carrier of affiliate which deceives the public as to the charges to be made for each such call (including ever increasing "directory assistance with call completion" services, which charge for directory assistance and then connect one to an information service, vendor, or called party).

The FTC should not prejudice directory services which are not common carriers or affiliates (i.e. 5% equity held by carrier), because directories of Bell operating companies (ILECs) are now unbundled to private companies which are not carriers or their affiliates (per FCC Order) but are information services providers. The FTC has the discretion to extend the Part 308 exemption beyond the Statutory mandate to include information service providers providing directory services which are not carriers or affiliates. Directory services have not been a subject of any significant charge-backs or consumer complaints and thus all directory services can be exempt without public risk. These services are almost all short calls costing less that $0.75 per call.

308.2(g)(2): The FTC should examine, and we propose, extending an exemption to non-audio-text/entertainment "collect calls" made pursuant to a generally available collect call services which are not affiliates of the information service provider and hold out their non-audio-text/entertainment collect call services to the public generally for all phone calls. The proposed inclusion of collect calls to pay-per-call without distinguishing the involvement of the information service provider or its carrier, would be unduly burdensome to entities which provide non-audio-text/entertainment collect call services, including "1-800-COLLECT" of MCI-WorldCom, and our proposed service.

March 8, 1999

Richard C. Bartel
President, & Individually
5530 Wisconsin Ave., #703/5
P.O. Box 70805
Chevy Chase, MD. 20813
(202) 728-3841