The Prepaid Press - May 15, 2008 - (Page 17)

CALLING CARDS May 15 · 2008 - 17 THE LEGAL LINE by Jonathan Marashlian which is predicated on alleged violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, prohibiting deceptive and unfair acts and practices injurious to consumers. In its Complaint, the FTC identifies those acts and practices in advertising, marketing and selling prepaid services that it considers to be deceptive and unfair and focuses on acts or practices it believes involve a misrepresenta- Having achieved some degree of success with this policy, the FTC now wants to impose its own regulation in place of the FCC’s deregulation. tion or omission of a material fact in advertising or selling services or goods. For example, the FTC alleges that prepaid cards that expressly, or by implication, lead consumers to believe they will receive a specified number of minutes of talk time, but deliver less than specified or implied, on its face, makes the marketing false and misleading, thereby constituting a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. Another example is based on alleged failures to “disclose adequately” that fees and surcharges will reduce the value of the prepaid card, resulting in a reduced number of minutes of talk time. The FTC alleges that information on these fees and surcharges would be a material consideration in a consumer’s decision to purchase a calling card and therefore the failure to disclose them at all, or at least “adequately disclose” them, is deceptive in violation of Section 5(a). And last, the FTC alleges that CTA’s failure to disclose that the value of a card is reduced by calls that do not connect is also a violation of Section 5(a). As you no doubt recognize, the troubling part about the FTC’s allegations (which, in turn, can Dear Legal Line: Most of our industry is by now aware of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) lawsuit against Clifton Telecard Alliance (CTA), for alleged deceptive sales practices in regards to calling card minutes and pricing. As a small distributor of calling cards, the lawsuit raises several questions of major concern to us. Since the prepaid calling card industry is already subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), what impact will there be if it also comes under FTC oversight? What additional or different standards will the FTC apply and where can I find these standards? Also, is it possible that FTC and FCC requirements will conflict, making it difficult for companies to know what to do and which agency to obey? And is it true that the FTC’s jurisdiction over telecom is limited? Concerned Dear Concerned: You’re right to be concerned about the FTC’s action. An adverse outcome, one which sets precedent for FTC regulation of telecom pricing practices, could cause the entire telecom industry major problems. Let me first address your last question, about the FTC’s “limited” jurisdiction over telecom companies. The FTC has general statutory authority over unfair and deceptive business practices. However, there are other federal regulatory agencies with authority over specific industry sectors. Hence, various statutory grants of authority to the FTC contain exemptions. For instance, telecommunications “common carriers” are explicitly exempted from FTC authority because these entities are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission. Therefore, the FTC cannot enforce federal unfair and deceptive trade practice laws and regulations against entities considered telecommunications common carriers. For the telecom industry this means that a “CTA-like” lawsuit by the FTC could not be sustained in any court against the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and other entities that fulfill the Telecommunications Act’s definition of a “telecommunication services” provider. The Telecommunications Act defines the term “telecommunications service” as “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.” Though thanks to over 100 years of common carrier jurisprudence, this definition is merely a starting point in determining whether any particular entity is or is not a telecommunications common carrier – and thus outside the FTC’s reach. The FTC has, in fact, lobbied Congress to remove the common carrier exemption for years. Recently, Senators Inouye and Dorgan introduced the FTC Reauthorization Act of 2008, including a provision that would bring wireless telecom carriers under the authority of the FTC. The good news is the bill is not directed at telecom providers in general. Yet, like the CTA lawsuit, the bill is still dangerous. FTC Chairman, William Kovacic, supports expanding his agency’s jurisdiction by saying the exemption is obsolete because telecom “monopolies” are no longer “heavily regulated.” This seems to overlook the fact that Congress and the FCC have spent decades promoting and substituting competition for regulation. Having achieved some degree of success with this policy, the FTC now wants to impose its own regulation in place of the FCC’s deregulation. It is said that bad ideas make bad laws and this would be no exception. And, even though the wireless sector has the laboring oar to defeat this particular piece of legislation, the prepaid industry should also let Congress know this is a bad idea (as is the lawsuit against CTA) because once the snowball starts heading downhill, it’s difficult to slow down. The common carrier exemption is front and center in the CTA lawsuit. If CTA can prove its status as a common carrier, it has a strong defense against the lawsuit based on the FTC’s lack of jurisdiction. Dismissal of the case based on lack of jurisdiction would be the best outcome for the industry considering the alternative, i.e., be viewed as a “distributor’s guide” to future compliance with FTC “rules” if the FTC succeeds in establishing dual “authority” over the practices of companies engaged in the telecom business) is that they are somewhat oversimplified. Such naiveté demonstrates the FTC’s lack of understanding about pricing structures and issues in the prepaid telecom industry. For starters, the FTC’s “rules” are in direct conflict with the rights telecom carriers have under the de-regulated, competitive environment established by the Communications Act. Further, they would penalize companies for engaging in otherwise lawful practices that are necessitated by the nature of prepaid card operations, particularly the use of multiple and disperse distribution channels, as well as the vagaries of international wholesale pricing, over which distributors and even carriers themselves lack control. It is precisely this oversimplified approach that justifies keeping the FTC out of regulating prepaid telecom. Card distributors, like you, may not necessarily care to seek carrier status or become “common carriers” to escape the FTC if it means they must subject themselves to the FCC and other utility regulations (more so than they already are). Yet given the FTC’s encroachment, the question must be given serious consideration by the industry; for much like the folkloric tale of Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox, given the alternatives, the industry could find the FCC briar patch a more bearable alternative to being hanged by the FTC. As Ed would say, Good luck and success to the industry. Jonathan S. Marashlian is partner at Helein & Marashlian, LLC, The CommLaw Group, a Washington, D.C.-area law firm specializing in federal and state telecommunications and technology matters. Questions and comments on this Legal Line may be addressed to jsm@commlawgroup.com. PhoenixSoft Adds Service Providers Cirrus Solution to Power Prepaid Services PHOENIX, AZ (April 23, 2008) PhoenixSoft has recently added two service providers to its list of Cirrus Softswitch customers, PowerNet Global Communications and iTeknik Holding Corporation (Pink Sheets: ITKH). iTechnik will use PhoenixSoft’s Cirrus Softswitch solutions for its two wholly-owned subsidiaries, TeleCents Communications and Send Global Corporation, Inc. Rick Kohel, director, network engineering and operations for PowerNet Global, said, “We invest continually in the latest telecommunications solutions that will have a major impact on our business and bring real value to our customers. By partnering with industry leaders such as PhoenixSoft, we’ve avoided huge capital expenditures to maintain outdated equipment.” “By deploying the Cirrus Softswitch, we’ll be able to offer more products, increase profits, decrease costs by as much as 10 percent, and establish new revenue streams,” said Jeff Lauzon, president, iTeknik Holding Corporation. “We expect these benefits to significantly grow our business and help position iTeknik as a major international provider.” PhoenixSoft provides enhanced switching through its Cirrus Softswitch, convergent billing and Retail Web Portal solutions. “As technologies evolve, our strategy has always been to provide a meaningful migration path for our customers,” said Paul Amick, PhoenixSoft co-founder. “The Cirrus Softswitch fits nicely within a variety of network configurations and replaces legacy programmable switches and other network components.” Source: PowerNet (www.powernetglobal.com) PhoenixSoft (www.phoenixsoft.com) As you no doubt recognize, the troubling part about the FTC’s allegations…is that they are somewhat oversimplified. a case with precedential value that encourages further FTC encroachment into the regulation of telecom pricing practices. There are other reasons for both carriers and distributors to be concerned about the FTC’s lawsuit against CTA. Foremost is the potential it will lead to the creation of dueling sets of “rules” – FTC rules governing distributor practices that affect and conflict with FCC rules & other regulatory requirements related to the pricing practices of telecom carriers. For even though the prepai http://www.powernetglobal.com http://www.phoenixsoft.com http://www.viscominternational.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of The Prepaid Press - May 15, 2008

The Prepaid Press - May 15, 2008 Prepaid Attracts Press Attention First Data to Acquire InComm Contents The Retske Report: To Everything There Is A Season Regulatory Rundown: Rules, Bills and Probes Courtesy of the FCC 5 Minutes With Ray Horak, Telecom Author The Prepaid Press Expo Spotlight The Age of Prepaid Prepaid Wireless in Brief Prepaid Wireless Roundup American Wireless to Sell Virgin Mobile Openet Introduces Flexible Accounts Prepaid Reviews Launches Pay as You Go Podcast Motorola Reports Losses APC Wireless Buys Movida Virgin Mobile to Deliver Limbo Services The State of Prepaid Technology Start Your Engines! The Legal Line PhoenixSoft Adds Service Providers Blackstone to Distribute Viscom Calling Cards Spot Rates IVR Technologies Releases Talking SIP 3.4 Calling Cards in Brief Former IDT Employee Wins $10.5 Million Payments in Brief Hypercom SmartPayments Certified for Windows Pacific Resource Credit Union Selects TMG New Payment Software for QuickBooks POS Blood in the Water Prepaid 101: Give Me the Power 7-Eleven to Hold Innovation Event First Data Gives Ingenico I-Series Class A Support Coinstar Kicks Off Change Reuse Program Payment Application Data Security Standard Issued Forrester Predicts Online Sales to Climb Retail Focus in Brief Our Advertisers Contact Us

The Prepaid Press - May 15, 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.