By Hand Delivery

Ms. Magalie Roman Salas
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, N.W. Suite 222

RE: Notice of Ex parte Presentation in Non-Restricted Proceedings
Access Charge Reform (CC Dkt. 96-262); and
Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format (CC Dkt. No. 98-170).

Dear Ms. Salas:

The Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, by its undersigned representative and in accordance with Section 1.1206 of the Commission’s rules, hereby respectfully submits an original and one copy of this oral and written ex parte notification for each of the aforementioned dockets.

Ms. Betty Jo Toccoli, Chairperson of the Small Business Alliance for Fair Utility Deregulation ("Alliance") and the undersigned met with William E. Kennard, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission"), and Tom Power, Legal Advisor to Chairman Kennard, on Tuesday, October 6, 1998, and discussed issues pertaining to access charge reform consistent with Advocacy’s previous comments on the record. Ms. Toccoli and Ms. Trigg also complemented the FCC in its efforts to protect consumers through its Truth-in-Billing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and discussed the need for there to be a provision that requires carriers to give advance notice to consumers for changes in rates and services so that small businesses can make an informed choice before such changes occur. An informed choice is truly effective if economic injury can be avoided.

Mr. Power was presented a copy of the Executive Summary from the Small Business Speaks Out: The Economic Impact Of Deceptive Practices In The Telecommunications Industry, 1998 Small Business Telephone Poll commissioned by the Alliance which illustrates the impact of such practices on small business consumers. It is important for the FCC to recognize that there are three distinct classes of consumers: (1) residential; (2) large business; and (3) small business.

Small businesses are harmed disproportionately by deceptive practices (such as slamming and cramming) compared to other classes of consumers for the following reasons. Given that small businesses have multiple telephone lines and thus, can be slammed or crammed on more lines, they will also suffer greater economic harm than residential consumers and more than big business because they have fixed costs and minimal, if any, profits to absorb those expenses. Small businesses have larger monthly invoices than residential consumers and thus, more time and effort is required to recognize, review, and resolve a billing discrepancy - time taken away from running the business. Furthermore, a small business is more likely to pay the discrepancy for fear of its service being disconnected. Such an unbudgeted increase in expenses can be a significant economic burden on small business.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please call with any questions.

S. Jenell Trigg, Esq.
Assistant Chief Counsel for Telecommunications

Office of Advocacy
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 Third Street, S.W. Suite 7800
Washington, D.C. 20416
(202) 205-6533

Attachment: Small Business Speaks Out: The Economic Impact Of Deceptive Practices In The Telecommunications Industry.

cc: Chairman William E. Kennard
Mr. Tom Power

* Last Modified: 6/14/01