Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26414602
label
Association of Directory Publishers
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26414602
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Association of Directory Publishers
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Michael Schmidt's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26414602
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7368814-20130968S-020-007-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b79c88a2c865e118
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. fax
List of attendees for October 1 meeting at the Old Executive Office
Sep. 20,
b(6)
Building [partial] (1 page)
1993
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Schmidt
OA/Box Number: 7349
FOLDER TITLE:
Association of Directory Publishers
2013-0968-S
sb63
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA)
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Association of Directory Publisters
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
DATE:
October 8, 1993
TO:
Mike Nelson, Office of Science and Technology Policy
FROM:
Mike Schmidt, Domestic Policy Council
RE:
Meeting with the Association of Directory Publishers
Last week I met with representatives of the Association of Directory
Publishers (ADP). ADP, which is composed of independent telephone directory
publishers, had written to Carol Rasco to complain about the anti-competitive
activities of the Bell Operating Companies (they are selling their lists of
subscriber information to ADP members for far more than market price, while
their the Bell telephone directory companies get the information for free).
In that letter, they asked to meet with Carol to discuss the issue in more detail,
especially as it relates to the Administration's planned Information Highway
Initiative. Carol asked me to meet with them in her place.
I know that your office (along with the Office of the Vice President) is
taking the lead on the Information Highway Initiative and passed that
information along to the ADP reps before setting up a meeting(and during the
meeting as well I also tried to contact the Office of the Vice President to have
someone from their staff sit in on the meeting, and they suggested that I contact
you. Unfortunately, I was not able to get in touch with you before the meeting. I
apologize for that.
I have attached a position summary from ADP that you may be interested
in. They seem to have a strong case against the Bell Operating Companies, and
their arguments raise some important issues that I assume the Administration's
Information Highway Initiative will eventually have to deal with. The ADP reps
at the meeting really didn't go into much more detail than the information
presented in this summary (although I now am well versed in the history of the
ADP!).
Please give me a call at X2165 if you want any more details about the
meeting.
ADP meeting
- Peasonable access access Ho white layes
- Markey Bill
200 independent Pablishers
- 4-1. - 4%
- 3/3 - 1/3 less
- Access 8 Pricing issuec
- do yrs - no problem
ATT Break-up - problem
- 300 - 408 -1,
- Digitized
- California Pnc sets price in CA
-17
- Sonall companies going risk out of busness
- Anti - Tryst not a realistic option
- Markey - CPI Bill
-4 year effort -
-Mike Brison
Tem Kalile
Lary Iruings
- Listing item information a tarifed
- white pages information - -7 cancepted
- Public Pmain 1, walking Fingers
- what IS needad - - Legislation
- Pattern 1 wound the Country
do FCC does want to
Sense NII of wamay (priority
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
3
AMARILLO DIVISION
4
GREAT WESTERN DIRECTORIES,
)
INC.,
:
5
)
Plaintiff,
)
6
VS.
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. CA2-88-213
)
7
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE
)
(Consolidated with
)
CA2-89-003)
8
COMPANY, ET AL,
)
)
9
Defendants. )
10
11
12
13
14
DEPOSITION OF OLIVIA LANFAIR
15
AUGUST 14, 1989
16
17
18
19
20
21
SONDRA L. CARGLE, CSR, RPR
22
SONDRA L. CARGLE & ASSOCIATES
23
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
4103 W. 49TH ST.
24
AMARILLO, TEXAS 79109
806/355-8181
25
COPY
1
Mr. Taylor was present at that meeting,
2
correct?
3
THE WITNESS: Right.
4
MR. ROWLEY: And he is employed by whom?
5
THE WITNESS: Southwestern Bell Telephone
6
Company.
7
8
BY MS. STONE:
9
Q.
Was he employed there at the time?
10
A.
Yes.
11
a
Is he still employed there?
12
A.
I don't know.
13
Q.
All right. Why was that meeting called? Do you
14
know?
15
A.
No, I don't.
16
Q.
What was discussed at that meeting?
17
A.
I discussed the directory listing information
18
agreements.
19
Q.
Okay. How did you know that the -- that at that
20
meeting, Southwestern Bell Publications, Media or Yellow
21
Pages was complaining about the revisions?
22
A.
Because at the time that I gave my presentation,
23
I was questioned on how we came up with a one dollar price.
24
Q.
Okay. And who was it that questioned you?
25
A.
At the time, it was Mike Kaufman.
(Former president of Southwestern
Bell Yellow Pages.)
99
1
°0.
Okay. What did he say?
2
A.
He asked me why not two dollars, three dollars,
3
four dollars; why one dollar.
4
D.
What comments did he make?
5
A.
He told me at the time that we could just
6
eliminate the competition.
7
a
What did he mean by that?
8
A.
I don't know.
9
&
He told you that you could just eliminate the
10
competition by raising the price?
11
A.
That's correct.
12
Q.
Competition in what?
13
A.
I don't know.
14
a:
Did he think that the price should be higher than
15
a dollar, then?
16
A.
He indicated they should have been higher than
17
one dollar.
18
Q.
Did he indicate whether or not he'd ever told
19
that to anyone else?
20
A.
No, he didn't.
21
Q.
Okay. What else did Mr. Kaufman say?
22
A.
That was basically all.
23
C.
Okay. Anything else about competition?
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
Anything about revenue?
100
1
A.
I don't remember.
2
&
Did he say anything?
3
A.
Yes, I'm sure that everyone said something at the
4
meeting. I just don't recall specifically what it was.
5
&
All right. What about Linda Legg?
6
A.
She was there and -- in representation of
7
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, in regard to our
8
separation -- the separation of joint marketing between
9
subsidiaries; and I think most of the input at that time was
10
concurrence that it was handled properly.
11
Q.
That what was handled properly?
12
A.
That the notification to increase prices was
13
handled properly in giving 60 days' notification to both our
14
affiliates, as well as our non-affiliates.
15
Q.
Did Southwestern Bell Publications, Media or
16
Yellow Pages indicate that they thought they should have
17
been notified earlier?
18
A.
Not specifically.
19
a
Was that the impression that you got?
20
A.
It was questioned.
21
a
Who questioned it?
22
A.
Mike Kaufman did.
23
&
What did he say?
24
A.
Simply_stated the impact that it was going to
25
have on his expenses.
105
1
Q.
Because he didn't have enough time to prepare for
2
it in his budget?
3
A.
That's correct.
4
Q.
But he wasn't upset with the amount of the
5
increase? In fact, he thought it should be more?
6
A.
That's correct.
7
Q.
What about Jerry Kaufman? What was his input?
8
A.
Jerry Kaufman?
9
MS. STONE: Off the record a minute.
10
A.
I'm sorry, Mike Kaufman. Jerry Allison.
11
12
BY MS. STONE:
13
Q.
Okay. We have him, but then we also had a Jerry
14
Kaufman.
15
A.
Scratch it.
16
MR. ROWLEY: I don't think there's any such
17
person.
18
MS. STONE: He's gone.
19
20
BY MS. STONE:
21
Q.
Hazel Michajliczenko; she gave the presentation
22
on the Fundamental Plan?
23
A.
That's correct.
24
Q.
Did she discuss any of the studies -- the
25
marketing studies?
106
ASSOCIATION OF
DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS (A.D.P.)
POSITION SUMMARY
We are asking all members of Congress to support amendments to pending leg-
islation which would prevent telephone companies from using their control of white
page listing information in a predatory or discriminatory manner.
At present there are over 200 independent companies across the country which
publish telephone directories in competition with the local telephone company.
Independent publishers employ tens of thousands of people and publish over 62
million directories annually.
Currently, telephone company publishers hold over 96% of the telephone directo-
ry market. Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC'S) alone control 82% of this
9 billion dollar market. This is a degree of hegemony never approached by compa-
nies like IBM, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble, Anheuser Busch, and U.S. Steel
which are supposed to dominate their fields.
Competition is valuable. Independent publishers have pioneered most of the
innovations which have come about in this industry including coupons, zip code list-
ings, etc. Independents offer advertisers low cost alternatives to the directories
published by telephone companies and have served as a catalyst compelling all
publishers to improve their products and become more responsive to the needs of
both consumers and advertisers.
All independent publishers rely on license agreements with telephone companies
(their competitors) to obtain white page subscriber listing information. This is an
essential facility for which there are no viable substitutes. Telephone companies
have this information only because of their status as public utilities, not because of
any superior acumen.
By manipulating pricing and access to white page information obtained as a
result of their regulated telephone franchise, telephone companies are attempting
to eliminate competition and perpetuate their monopoly in the unregulated Yellow
Page advertising business. At the same time their wholly-owned directory sub-
sidiaries, who are unregulated and sell yellow page advertising, have unlimited
access to this information.
Since the 1984 breakup of AT&T and the ensuing increase in the level of compe-
tition provided by independent publishers, Telcos have been restricting access to
white page listings and dramatically raising the price for such information. Rate
increases of 100%+ per year are not uncommon.
Independent directory publishers need, and are willing to pay a fair price to obtain
access to the telephone companies' unique name, address, and telephone number
databases. The telephone companies have chosen to exploit their exclusive control
over these unique databases to extract prices that are many multiples of their actu-
al costs and have, thereby, needlessly increased the independent publishers' costs
of doing business.
Telephone Companies charge an extraordinary variety of prices for exactly the
same thing: access to standard, computerized databases of telephone subscriber
listing information. For example, the price of listings on magnetic media vary from 4
cents per listing to $2.50 per listing. Only a monopolist can engage in such discrimi-
natory pricing. It is not uncommon for RBOC's to charge one price to non-competi-
tors (direct mail companies, etc.), while simultaneously charging vastly higher
prices to independent publishers for exactly the same information.
Anti-trust action by independent publishers to remedy this situation is difficult
because of the enormous costs of such litigation and the tremendous difference in
size between independents and telephone companies. Few independent publishers
have the resources to litigate against a utility that can charge its legal costs to its
rate payers.
In 1989 independent publishers did pool their resources to provide financial
assistance to one publisher (Great Western Directories Inc) in a federal anti-trust
suit against Southwestern Bell. Great Western won this case on all counts and was
awarded $15 million in damages. In a subsequent injunction the court ordered
Southwestern Bell to reduce their listing price from $1.00/listing to 13.5c/listing and
to dramatically alter their license agreement terms. While this victory underscores
the validity of independent publisher's complaints it does not provide a nationwide
solution to this problem. Independents simply do not have the resources necessary
to separately litigate this issue in all fifty states.
In an attempt to further strain independent publisher's resources, in early 1993,
Bell South filed requests with the state public utility commissions (PUC's) in their
region to make listing information a tariffed item. While independents do not neces-
sarily object to PUC regulation, this move by Bell South is an attempt to use the
PUC's to falsely legitimize their anti-competitive listing policies. Bell South's pro-
posed tariff would, among other things, restrict independent publisher's rights to
maintain their own database and produce electronic directories, give Bell South
intellectual property rights on the term "Yellow Pages" and the Walking Fingers logo
which the courts have repeatedly denied them, and circumvent the Supreme
Copurt's recent decision that white pages listing cannot be copyrighted by condi-
tioning access to listing information on restricted use by independent publishers. By
proposing such outrageous terms to multiple PUC's Bell South is attempting to
extend independent publisher's resources beyond their limits and gain a competi-
tive advantage in an unregulated industry.
If present trends continue all independent publishers nationwide will eventually
fail and the limited competition which does exist in this industry will be eliminated.
The only viable solution to this situation is legislation which insures independent
publishers access to listing information on terms which are reasonable and non-dis-
criminatory. This solution is part of the new Danforth-Inouye "Telecommunications
Highway" Bill (S#1086), which includes such an access requirement. We ask all
Senators to help insure that this provision remains in this legislation and all
Congressmen to insure that a similar provision is included in any legislation origi-
nating in the House. This is necessary to maintain competition in the printed direc-
tory medium and absolutely essential to foster a competitive environment when
directories move into electronic formats. Competition in future electronic informa-
tion markets will be as dependent on non-discriminatory access to subscriber listing
information as competition in print products is today.
ASSOCIATION OF DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS
CAROL HILL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (508)883-3688.
ASSOCIATION OF
DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS (A.D.P.)
POSITION SUMMARY
We are asking all members of Congress to support amendments to pending leg-
islation which would prevent telephone companies from using their control of white
page listing information in a predatory or discriminatory manner.
At present there are over 200 independent companies across the country which
publish telephone directories in competition with the local telephone company.
Independent publishers employ tens of thousands of people and publish over 62
million directories annually.
Currently, telephone company publishers hold over 96% of the telephone directo-
ry market. Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC'S) alone control 82% of this
9 billion dollar market. This is a degree of hegemony never approached by compa-
nies like IBM, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble, Anheuser Busch, and U.S. Steel
which are supposed to dominate their fields.
Competition is valuable. Independent publishers have pioneered most of the
innovations which have come about in this industry including coupons, zip code list-
ings, etc. Independents offer advertisers low cost alternatives to the directories
published by telephone companies and have served as a catalyst compelling all
publishers to improve their products and become more responsive to the needs of
both consumers and advertisers.
All independent publishers rely on license agreements with telephone companies
(their competitors) to obtain white page subscriber listing information. This is an
essential facility for which there are no viable substitutes. Telephone companies
have this information only because of their status as public utilities, not because of
any superior acumen.
By manipulating pricing and access to white page information obtained as a
result of their regulated telephone franchise, telephone companies are attempting
to eliminate competition and perpetuate their monopoly in the unregulated Yellow
Page advertising business. At the same time their wholly-owned directory sub-
sidiaries, who are unregulated and sell yellow page advertising, have unlimited
access to this information.
Since the 1984 breakup of AT&T and the ensuing increase in the level of compe-
tition provided by independent publishers, Telcos have been restricting access to
white page listings and dramatically raising the price for such information. Rate
increases of 100%+ per year are not uncommon.
Independent directory publishers need, and are willing to pay a fair price to obtain
access to the telephone companies' unique name, address, and telephone number
databases. The telephone companies have chosen to exploit their exclusive control
over these unique databases to extract prices that are many multiples of their actu-
al costs and have, thereby, needlessly increased the independent publishers' costs
of doing business.
Telephone Companies charge an extraordinary variety of prices for exactly the
same thing: access to standard, computerized databases of telephone subscriber
listing information. For example, the price of listings on magnetic media vary from 4
cents per listing to $2.50 per listing. Only a monopolist can engage in such discrimi-
natory pricing. It is not uncommon for RBOC's to charge one price to non-competi-
tors (direct mail companies, etc.), while simultaneously charging vastly higher
prices to independent publishers for exactly the same information.
Anti-trust action by independent publishers to remedy this situation is difficult
because of the enormous costs of such litigation and the tremendous difference in
size between independents and telephone companies. Few independent publishers
have the resources to litigate against a utility that can charge its legal costs to its
rate payers.
In 1989 independent publishers did pool their resources to provide financial
assistance to one publisher (Great Western Directories Inc) in a federal anti-trust
suit against Southwestern Bell. Great Western won this case on all counts and was
awarded $15 million in damages. In a subsequent injunction the court ordered
Southwestern Bell to reduce their listing price from $1.00/listing to 13.5c/listing and
to dramatically alter their license agreement terms. While this victory underscores
the validity of independent publisher's complaints it does not provide a nationwide
solution to this problem. Independents simply do not have the resources necessary
to separately litigate this issue in all fifty states.
In an attempt to further strain independent publisher's resources, in early 1993,
Bell South filed requests with the state public utility commissions (PUC's) in their
region to make listing information a tariffed item. While independents do not neces-
sarily object to PUC regulation, this move by Bell South is an attempt to use the
PUC's to falsely legitimize their anti-competitive listing policies. Bell South's pro-
posed tariff would, among other things, restrict independent publisher's rights to
maintain their own database and produce electronic directories, give Bell South
intellectual property rights on the term "Yellow Pages" and the Walking Fingers logo
which the courts have repeatedly denied them, and circumvent the Supreme
Copurt's recent decision that white pages listing cannot be copyrighted by condi-
tioning access to listing information on restricted use by independent publishers. By
proposing such outrageous terms to multiple PUC's Bell South is attempting to
extend independent publisher's resources beyond their limits and gain a competi-
tive advantage in an unregulated industry.
If present trends continue all independent publishers nationwide will eventually
fail and the limited competition which does exist in this industry will be eliminated.
The only viable solution to this situation is legislation which insures independent
publishers access to listing information on terms which are reasonable and non-dis-
criminatory. This solution is part of the new Danforth-Inouye "Telecommunications
Highway" Bill (S#1086), which includes such an access requirement. We ask all
Senators to help insure that this provision remains in this legislation and all
Congressmen to insure that a similar provision is included in any legislation origi-
nating in the House. This is necessary to maintain competition in the printed direc-
tory medium and absolutely essential to foster a competitive environment when
directories move into electronic formats. Competition in future electronic informa-
tion markets will be as dependent on non-discriminatory access to subscriber listing
information as competition in print products is today.
ASSOCIATION OF DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS
CAROL HILL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (508)883-3688.
ASSOCIATION OF
DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS (A.D.P.)
POSITION SUMMARY
We are asking all members of Congress to support amendments to pending leg-
islation which would prevent telephone companies from using their control of white
page listing information in a predatory or discriminatory manner.
At present there are over 200 independent companies across the country which
publish telephone directories in competition with the local telephone company.
Independent publishers employ tens of thousands of people and publish over 62
million directories annually.
Currently, telephone company publishers hold over 96% of the telephone directo-
ry market. Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC'S) alone control 82% of this
9 billion dollar market. This is a degree of hegemony never approached by compa-
nies like IBM, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble, Anheuser Busch, and U.S. Steel
which are supposed to dominate their fields.
Competition is valuable. Independent publishers have pioneered most of the
innovations which have come about in this industry including coupons, zip code list-
ings, etc. Independents offer advertisers low cost alternatives to the directories
published by telephone companies and have served as a catalyst compelling all
publishers to improve their products and become more responsive to the needs of
both consumers and advertisers.
All independent publishers rely on license agreements with telephone companies
(their competitors) to obtain white page subscriber listing information. This is an
essential facility for which there are no viable substitutes. Telephone companies
have this information only because of their status as public utilities, not because of
any superior acumen.
By manipulating pricing and access to white page information obtained as a
result of their regulated telephone franchise, telephone companies are attempting
to eliminate competition and perpetuate their monopoly in the unregulated Yellow
Page advertising business. At the same time their wholly-owned directory sub-
sidiaries, who are unregulated and sell yellow page advertising, have unlimited
access to this information.
Since the 1984 breakup of AT&T and the ensuing increase in the level of compe-
tition provided by independent publishers, Telcos have been restricting access to
white page listings and dramatically raising the price for such information. Rate
increases of 100%+ per year are not uncommon.
Independent directory publishers need, and are willing to pay a fair price to obtain
access to the telephone companies' unique name, address, and telephone number
databases. The telephone companies have chosen to exploit their exclusive control
over these unique databases to extract prices that are many multiples of their actu-
al costs and have, thereby, needlessly increased the independent publishers' costs
of doing business.
Telephone Companies charge an extraordinary variety of prices for exactly the
same thing: access to standard, computerized databases of telephone subscriber
listing information. For example, the price of listings on magnetic media vary from 4
cents per listing to $2.50 per listing. Only a monopolist can engage in such discrimi-
natory pricing. It is not uncommon for RBOC's to charge one price to non-competi-
tors (direct mail companies, etc.), while simultaneously charging vastly higher
prices to independent publishers for exactly the same information.
Anti-trust action by independent publishers to remedy this situation is difficult
because of the enormous costs of such litigation and the tremendous difference in
size between independents and telephone companies. Few independent publishers
have the resources to litigate against a utility that can charge its legal costs to its
rate payers.
In 1989 independent publishers did pool their resources to provide financial
assistance to one publisher (Great Western Directories Inc) in a federal anti-trust
suit against Southwestem Bell. Great Western won this case on all counts and was
awarded $15 million in damages. In a subsequent injunction the court ordered
Southwestern Bell to reduce their listing price from $1.00/listing to 13.5c/listing and
to dramatically alter their license agreement terms. While this victory underscores
the validity of independent publisher's complaints it does not provide a nationwide
solution to this problem. Independents simply do not have the resources necessary
to separately litigate this issue in all fifty states.
In an attempt to further strain independent publisher's resources, in early 1993,
Bell South filed requests with the state public utility commissions (PUC's) in their
region to make listing information a tariffed item. While independents do not neces-
sarily object to PUC regulation, this move by Bell South is an attempt to use the
PUC's to falsely legitimize their anti-competitive listing policies. Bell South's pro-
posed tariff would, among other things, restrict independent publisher's rights to
maintain their own database and produce electronic directories, give Bell South
intellectual property rights on the term "Yellow Pages" and the Walking Fingers logo
which the courts have repeatedly denied them, and circumvent the Supreme
Copurt's recent decision that white pages listing cannot be copyrighted by condi-
tioning access to listing information on restricted use by independent publishers. By
proposing such outrageous terms to multiple PUC's Bell South is attempting to
extend independent publisher's resources beyond their limits and gain a competi-
tive advantage in an unregulated industry.
If present trends continue all independent publishers nationwide will eventually
fail and the limited competition which does exist in this industry will be eliminated.
The only viable solution to this situation is legislation which insures independent
publishers access to listing information on terms which are reasonable and non-dis-
criminatory. This solution is part of the new Danforth-Inouye "Telecommunications
Highway" Bill (S#1086), which includes such an access requirement. We ask all
Senators to help insure that this provision remains in this legislation and all
Congressmen to insure that a similar provision is included in any legislation origi-
nating in the House. This is necessary to maintain competition in the printed direc-
tory medium and absolutely essential to foster a competitive environment when
directories move into electronic formats. Competition in future electronic informa-
tion markets will be as dependent on non-discriminatory access to subscriber listing
information as competition in print products is today.
ASSOCIATION OF DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS
CAROL HILL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (508)883-3688.
JUL 06 '93 11:10AM GREAT WESTERN DIR CORP AMA
P.2/6
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUL 2 1993
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
NANCY DOHERTY, CLERK
By
Deputy
GREAT WESTERN DIRECTORIES,
§
INC. and CANYON DIRECTORIES,
§
INC.,
§
PLAINTIFFS,
§
CIVIL ACTION CAUSE NUMBER
V.
§
2:88-CV-0218-J
§
SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORPORATION,
§
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE
§
CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL
COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL
§
ACTION CAUSE NUMBER
PUBLICATIONS, INC., SOUTH-
§
2:89-CV-003-J
WESTERN BELL MEDIA, INC., and
§
SOUTHWESTERN BELL YELLOW PAGES,
§
INC.,
§
DEFENDANTS.
$
FINAL JUDGMENT
This action came on for trial before a jury on the issues of
liability and damages, and before the Court on the issue of
Plaintiffs' entitlement to injunctive relief. All post-trial
motions have been ruled upon. On July 26, 1990, the Court entered
partial judgment for Plaintiffs and against all Defendants for
money damages, which is repeated herein in accordance with the
Court's rulings on all post-trial motions. All issues having been
duly tried and the jury having duly rendered its verdict,
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs
GREAT WESTERN DIRECTORIES, INC. and CANYON DIRECTORIES, INC.
recover of and from Defendants SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORPORATION,
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL PUBLICA-
TIONS, INC., SOUTHWESTERN BELL MEDIA, INC., and SOUTHWESTERN BELL
YELLOW PAGES, INC. the following sums:
ENTERED ON DOCKET
.7 7 2.93 PUNSUANT
TO F,R.C.P. RULES
58 AND 793.
JUL 06 '93 11:11AM GREAT WESTERN DIR CORP AMA
P.3/6
1. Plaintiff GREAT WESTERN DIRECTORIES, INC. shall
recover of and from Defendants SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORPORATION,
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL PUBLICA-
TIONS, INC., SOUTHWESTERN BELL MEDIA, INC., and SOUTHWESTERN BELL
YELLOW PAGES, INC., jointly and severally, the sum of Fifteen
Million Dollars and No Cents ($15,000,000.00);
2. Plaintiff CANYON DIRECTORIES, INC. shall recover of
and from Defendants SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORPORATION, SOUTHWESTERN
BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
SOUTHWESTERN BELL MEDIA, INC., and SOUTHWESTERN BELL YELLOW PAGES,
INC., jointly and severally, the sum of Twenty-eight Thousand, Two
Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($28,200.00) ;
3. Plaintiff GREAT WESTERN DIRECTORIES, INC. shall
recover of and from Defendants SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORPORATION,
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL PUBLICA-
TIONS, INC., SOUTHWESTERN BELL MEDIA, INC., and SOUTHWESTERN BELL
YELLOW PAGES, INC., jointly and severally, the sum of One Million
Dollars and No Cents ($1,000,000.00) in attorneys fees for
/preparation and trial in this Court;
4. Plaintiff CANYON DIRECTORIES, INC. shall recover of
and from Defendants SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORPORATION, SOUTHWESTERN
BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
SOUTHWESTERN BELL MEDIA, INC., and SOUTHWESTERN BELL YELLOW PAGES,
INC., jointly and severally, the sum of Twenty-six Thousand Dollars
and No Cents ($26,000.00) in attorneys fees for preparation and
trial in this Court.
2
JUL 06 '93 11:11AM GREAT WESTERN DIR CORP AMA
P.4/6
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs
GREAT WESTERN DIRECTORIES, INC. and CANYON DIRECTORIES, INC. shall
recover of and from Defendants SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORPORATION,
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL PUBLICA-
TIONS, INC., SOUTHWESTERN BELL MEDIA, INC., and SOUTHWESTERN BELL
YELLOW PAGES, INC., jointly and severally, their proper costs of
this action, and interest on this Final Judgment at the rate of
8.09 % per annum as provided by law from July 26, 1990, the date
of partial judgment in this action, until paid in full.
It is FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs
GREAT WESTERN DIRECTORIES, INC. and CANYON DIRECTORIES, INC.,
having sought injunctive relief in addition to the monetary damages
awarded above, are entitled to the following injunction to prevent
continuing damages.
It is therefore FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that
Defendant SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY shall sell subscriber
information listings to independent publishers, including the
Plaintiffs, on the following terms and conditions:
A. Current directory listings on magnetic tape format
from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's database
of current listings (formerly referred to as an
"initial load" in Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company's prior contracts), without any requirement
to buy monthly or daily updates in the future, at
the price of 13½¢ per listing, purchased in NNX or
exchange increments. An administrative fee of
3
JUL 06 '93 11:11AM GREAT WESTERN DIR CORP AMA
P.5/6
ments. An administrative fee of $500.00 per con-
tract and a $25.00 tape charge may be charged if
the magnetic tape option is selected by Plaintiffs.
Such "initial load" or "snapshot" will be made
available as of any business day selected by Plain-
tiff, provided advance written notice of sixty (60)
days is given.
B.
Monthly or daily updates in the formats previously
provided, including "business only" listings, pur-
chased in NNX or exchange increments at 1340 per
listing. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company may,
if this update option is requested, require this
option to be taken for a period of thirty (30)
days, but may not require any longer period. Addi-
tional charges for tapes and administrative fees of
$25.00 and $500.00, respectively, may also be
charged if this option is exercised in magnetic
tape format. Updates ordered simultaneously with
the initial load and covering all or a portion of
the initial load NNX's may result in two adminis-
trative fees being charged.
It is FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the directory
listing information purchased in any of the above formats may be
used multiple times in multiple editions of Plaintiffs' multiple
directories at no additional charge.
4
JUL 06 '93 11:12AM GREAT WESTERN DIR CORP AMA
P.6/6
It is FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that these prices,
terms and conditions shall remain in effect for five years, unless
modified by the Court within that time.
IT IS so ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED.
Signed this the /st day of July, 1993.
Lew
MARY LOU ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
SEP-20-1993 15:32 FROM WHITE DIRECTORY PUB. INC. TO
12024567028
P.03
ASSOCIATION OF
DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS (A.D.P.)
POSITION SUMMARY
We are asking all members of Congress to support amendments to pending leg-
islation which would prevent telephone companies from using their control of white
page listing information in a predatory or discriminatory manner.
At present there are over 200 independent companies across the country which
publish telephone directories in competition with the local telephone company.
Independent publishers employ tens of thousands of people and publish over 62
million directories annually.
Currently, telephone company publishers hold over 96% of the telephone directo-
ry market. Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC'S) alone control 82% of this
9 billion dollar market. This is a degree of hegemony never approached by compa-
nies like IBM, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble, Anheuser Busch, and U.S. Steel
which are supposed to dominate their fields.
Competition is valuable. Independent publishers have pioneered most of the
innovations which have come about in this industry including coupons, zip code list-
ings, etc. Independents offer advertisers low cost alternatives to the directories
published by telephone companies and have served as a catalyst compelling all
publishers to improve their products and become more responsive to the needs of
both consumers and advertisers.
All independent publishers rely on license agreements with telephone companies
(their competitors) to obtain white page subscriber listing information. This is an
essential facility for which there are no viable substitutes. Telephone companies
have this information only because of their status as public utilities, not because of
any superior acumen.
By manipulating pricing and access to white page information obtained as a
result of their regulated telephone franchise, telephone companies are attempting
to eliminate competition and perpetuate their monopoly in the unregulated Yellow
Page advertising business. At the same time their wholly-owned directory sub-
sidiaries, who are unregulated and sell yellow page advertising, have unlimited
access to this information.
Since the 1984 breakup of AT&T and the ensuing increase in the level of compe-
tition provided by independent publishers, Telcos have been restricting access to
white page listings and dramatically raising the price for such information. Rate
increases of 100%+ per year are not uncommon.
SEP-20-1993 15:32 FROM WHITE DIRECTORY PUB. INC. TO
12024567028
P.04
Independent directory publishers need, and are willing to pay a fair price to obtain
access to the telephone companies' unique name, address, and telephone number
databases. The telephone companies have chosen to exploit their exclusive control
over these unique databases to extract prices that are many multiples of their actu-
al costs and have, thereby, needlessly increased the independent publishers' costs
of doing business.
Telephone Companies charge an extraordinary variety of prices for exactly the
same thing: access to standard, computerized databases of telephone subscriber
listing information. For example, the price of listings on magnetic media vary from 4
cents per listing to $2.50 per listing. Only a monopolist can engage in such discrimi-
natory pricing. It is not uncommon for RBOC's to charge one price to non-competi-
tors (direct mail companies, etc.), while simultaneously charging vastly higher
prices to independent publishers for exactly the same information.
Anti-trust action by independent publishers to remedy this situation is difficult
because of the enormous costs of such litigation and the tremendous difference in
size between independents and telephone companies. Few independent publishers
have the resources to litigate against a utility that can charge its legal costs to its
rate payers.
In 1989 independent publishers did pool their resources to provide financial
assistance to one publisher (Great Western Directories Inc) in a federal anti-trust
suit against Southwestem Bell. Great Western won this case on all counts and was
awarded $15 million in damages. In a subsequent injunction the court ordered
Southwestern Bell to reduce their listing price from $1.00/listing to 13.5c/listing and
to dramatically alter their license agreement terms. While this victory underscores
the validity of independent publisher's complaints it does not provide a nationwide
solution to this problem. Independents simply do not have the resources necessary
to separately litigate this issue in all fifty states.
In an attempt to further strain independent publisher's resources, in early 1993,
Bell South filed requests with the state public utility commissions (PUC's) in their
region to make listing information a tariffed item. While independents do not neces-
sarily object to PUC regulation, this move by Bell South is an attempt to use the
PUC's to falsely legitimize their anti-competitive listing policies. Bell South's pro-
posed tariff would, among other things, restrict independent publisher's rights to
maintain their own database and produce electronic directories, give Bell South
intellectual property rights on the term "Yellow Pages" and the Walking Fingers logo
which the courts have repeatedly denied them, and circumvent the Supreme
Copurt's recent decision that white pages listing cannot be copyrighted by condi-
tioning access to listing information on restricted use by independent publishers. By
proposing such outrageous terms to multiple PUC's Bell South is attempting to
extend independent publisher's resources beyond their limits and gain a competi-
tive advantage in an unregulated industry.
SEP-20-1993 15:33 FROM WHITE DIRECTORY PUB. INC. TO
12024567028
P.05
If present trends continue all independent publishers nationwide will eventually
fail and the limited competition which does exist in this industry will be eliminated.
The only viable solution to this situation is legislation which insures independent
publishers access to listing information on terms which are reasonable and non-dis-
criminatory. This solution is part of the new Danforth-Inouye "Telecommunications
Highway" Bill (S#1086), which includes such an access requirement. We ask all
Senators to help insure that this provision remains in this legislation and all
Congressmen to insure that a similar provision is included in any legislation origi-
nating in the House. This is necessary to maintain competition in the printed direc-
tory medium and absolutely essential to foster a competitive environment when
directories move into electronic formats. Competition in future electronic informa-
tion markets will be as dependent on non-discriminatory access to subscriber listing
information as competition in print products is today.
ASSOCIATION OF DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS
CAROL HILL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (508)883-3688.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. fax
List of attendees for October I meeting at the Old Executive Office
Sep. 20,
b(6)
Building [partial] (1 page)
1993
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Schmidt
OA/Box Number: 7349
FOLDER TITLE:
Association of Directory Publishers
2013-0968-S
sb63
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)|
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)|
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA|
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA)
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIAJ
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA|
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
THE
A
TALKING
PHONE BOOK
September 20, 1993
Via Facsimile
Mike Schmidt
Domestic Policy Office
The White House
Washington D.C.
Dear Mike,
Per our recent telephone conversations. here is the list of attendees for our October 1st meeting at the Old
Executive Office Building:
Birthdate
Richard D. Lewis
Wilbur D. Lewis
Phillip Verveer
(b)(6)
Claudia James
Russell Smith
I have also included a copy of our Association's (A.D.P.) position summary for your review. Please let me know if
there's anything else you need. I look forward to seeing you on October 1st.
Sincerely,
Rich
Richard D. Lewis
White Directory Of Rochester. Inc.
White Directory Publishers. inc.
White Directory Of Pennsylvania, Inc.
2024 W. Henrietta Rd., Unit 3.8
1945 Sherldan Drive
3120 State St.
DATE:
September 10, 1993
TO:
Carol Rasco
FROM:
Mike Schmidt
RE:
Follow up on Association of Directory Publishers Letter
I spoke with Richard Lewis of the Association of Directory Publishers (ADP)
this afternoon. The topic of conversation was the letter that he sent to you dated
April 21 (the letter that you didn't see until recently), which I have attached. As
you requested, I apologized for the late response to his letter and asked for an
update on ADP's situation. As you may recall, ADP is composed of independent
telephone directory publishers, and they has written to you to complain about the
anti-competitive activities of the Bell Operating Companies (they are selling their
lists of subscriber information to ADP members for far more than market price,
while their the Bell telephone directory companies get the information for free).
Apparently, much has happened since his letter to you of April 21. The
ADP has been working closely with Senators Inouye and Danforth and
Representative Markey on this issue, and their efforts have led to several
amendments addressing the issue in S-1086, the Inouye/Danforth-sponsored
Telecommunications Infrastructure Act of 1993. Rep. Markey is supposedly ready
to offer similar amendments to the House version in the near future.
Mr. Lewis asked to meet with us to discuss the issue in more detail,
especially as it relates to the Administration's planned Information Highway
Initiative. I tentatively set up a meeting with him on October 1 on this issue. I
have two questions about this meeting:
Is it alright for me to meet with ADP and hear what they have to
say? absolutely fine
If yes, would you like to attend the meeting? I'll probably not set
If the meeting does take place, we may want to invite someone from IN.at Vice this time.
President Gore's policy staff to sit in, since the Information Highway Initiative is
one of the VP's pet projects. What do you think? - Excellent suggestion!
Thanks for your usual fine
Through work! and !
CHRaseo
Adp Since 1898
Association of Directory Publishers
105 Summer Street
Wrentham, MA 02093
(508) 883-3688
FAX (508) 883-3717
April 21, 1993
Carol Rasco
Assistant to the President
Mike Selmiale P.O. me,
for Domestic Policy
The Whitehouse
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 70501
Dear Ms. Rasco:
I am writing to you at the suggestion of Darlene Davis, Legislative Assistant to Congressman William
Jefferson of Louisiana. Recently a member of our Association, Bill Hammack, spoke to Ms. Davis concerning an
issue which not only threatens to eliminate all competition in the Telephone Directory Publishing Industry and put
tens of thousands of people out of work, but also has major ramifications for the Information Highway/RBOC vs.
Cable Industry Debate currently taking place in Congress. Enclosed please find a two page summary of this issue
and the origins of our Association, the Association of Directory Publishers (ADP).
ADP was founded in 1898 and is composed of independent telephone directory publishers. Our directories
compete with the directories published by the Regional Bell Operating Companies and other tariff holders. We have
over 200 members across the country and collectively publish more telephone directories than any other company in
the United States including the Bell Operating Companies. Since the break up of AT&T in 1984 we have been the
victims of a deliberate campaign of anti-competitive practices conducted by the Bell Operating Companies which is
designed to restrict our access to an essential facility (subscriber white page listing information) and limit our ability
to compete with their directory subsidiaries. We would like to see safeguards inserted into any future
telecommunications legislation which would guarantee us access to subscriber listing information on terms which
are reasonable and non-discriminatory. Since subscriber listing information is something which the telephone
companies have control over strictly because of their status as regulated Public Utilities we feel that they should not
be permitted to use this control to restrict competition in the unregulated yellow page advertising business. At
present, most telephone companies provide this information to their unregulated directory publishing subsidiaries on
terms which are far more favorable than the terms under which they provide them to independent publishers. What
we are looking for is some simple safeguards to prevent this discriminatory conduct. We are flexible about the
language and potential vehicles used to establish such safeguards. We do not oppose the entry of the Regional Bell
Operating Companies into the electronic publishing industry as long as safeguards like the one we are proposing are
in place to prevent them from unfairly monopolizing this industry. The issue of equal access to subscriber listing
information is as necessary to insure the existence of a competitive environment in the future electronic publishing
industry as it is to allow competition in the present print publishing industry.
Since 1990 we have been extremely active in Washington. We have met regularly with the staffs of
Congressmen Markey, Dingel, Tavzin, Cooper, and Brooks as well as all other members of the Energy &
Commerce and Judicial Committees in the House. At the request of these committees we have submitted
documentation supporting our position into the records of these committees. We have also had numerous contracts
with members of the Senate, particularly members of the Commerce and Judicial Committees. All of the Members
of Congress we've spoken with have expressed support for our position and have agreed that what we're trying to
accomplish is very reasonable and routine. A number of them have suggested that we should meet with a member of
Since 1898 Devoted To Fostering And Maintaining Highest Standards Of Directory Service
-2-
the Administration to make you aware of our existence and our circumstances. That is the purpose of this letter. I
would like to meet with you or your representative at any future date which is convenient for you to provide a more
thorough explanation of our situation. Our attorney Phil Verveer from Wilkai Farr and Gallagher would be available
to give details on the potential remedies we would consider appropriate to solve this problem. Please have someone
representative. from your office contact me at (716) 875-9100 to set up a meeting time which would be convenient for you or your
Sincerely,
Richard D. Lewis
ADP Legal Affairs Chairman
Ad
Association of Directory Publishers
105 Summer Street
Wrentham, MA 02093
(508) 883-3688
FAX (508) 883-3717
Since 1898
April 21, 1993
Carol Rasco
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Policy
Mike Sehmiale CHR me,
The Whitehouse
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 70501
Dear Ms. Rasco:
I am writing to you at the suggestion of Darlene Davis, Legislative Assistant to Congressman William
Jefferson of Louisiana. Recently a member of our Association, Bill Hammack, spoke to Ms. Davis concerning an
issue which not only threatens to eliminate all competition in the Telephone Directory Publishing Industry and put
tens of thousands of people out of work, but also has major ramifications for the Information Highway/RBOC vs.
Cable Industry Debate currently taking place in Congress. Enclosed please find a two page summary of this issue
and the origins of our Association, the Association of Directory Publishers (ADP).
ADP was founded in 1898 and is composed of independent telephone directory publishers. Our directories
compete with the directories published by the Regional Bell Operating Companies and other tariff holders. We have
over 200 members across the country and collectively publish more telephone directories than any other company in
the United States including the Bell Operating Companies. Since the break up of AT&T in 1984 we have been the
victims of a deliberate campaign of anti-competitive practices conducted by the Bell Operating Companies which is
designed to restrict our access to an essential facility (subscriber white page listing information) and limit our ability
to compete with their directory subsidiaries. We would like to sec safeguards inserted into any future
telecommunications legislation which would guarantee us access to subscriber listing information on terms which
are reasonable and non-discriminatory. Since subscriber listing information is something which the telephone
companies have control over strictly because of their status as regulated Public Utilities we feel that they should not
be permitted to use this control to restrict competition in the unregulated yellow page advertising business. At
present, most telephone companies provide this information to their unregulated directory publishing subsidiaries on
terms which are far more favorable than the terms under which they provide them to independent publishers. What
we are looking for is some simple safeguards to prevent this discriminatory conduct. We are flexible about the
language and potential vehicles used to establish such safeguards. We do not oppose the entry of the Regional Bell
Operating Companies into the electronic publishing industry as long as safeguards like the one we are proposing are
in place to prevent them from unfairly monopolizing this industry. The issue of equal access to subscriber listing
information is as necessary to insure the existence of a competitive environment in the future electronic publishing
industry as it is to allow competition in the present print publishing industry.
Since 1990 we have been extremely active in Washington. We have met regularly with the staffs of
Congressmen Markey, Dingel, Tavzin, Cooper, and Brooks as well as all other members of the Energy &
Commerce and Judicial Committees in the House. At the request of these committees we have submitted
documentation supporting our position into the records of these committees. We have also had numerous contracts
with members of the Senate, particularly members of the Commerce and Judicial Committees. All of the Members
of Congress we've spoken with have expressed support for our position and have agreed that what we're trying to
accomplish is very reasonable and routine. A number of them have suggested that we should meet with a member of
Since 1898 Devoted To Fostering And Maintaining Highest Standards Of Directory Service
-2-
the Administration to make you aware of our existence and our circumstances. That is the purpose of this letter. I
would like to meet with you or your representative at any future date which is convenient for you to provide a more
thorough explanation of our situation. Our attorney Phil Verveer from Wilkai Farr and Gallagher would be available
to give details on the potential remedies we would consider appropriate to solve this problem. Please have someone
from your office contact me at (716) 875-9100 to set up a meeting time which would be convenient for you or your
representative.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Lewis
ADP Legal Affairs Chairman
ASSOC A' ON OF
DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS (A.D.P.)
POSITION SUMMARY
AT PRESENT THERE ARE OVER 200 INDEPENDENT COMPANIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHICH
PUBLISH TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES IN COMPETITION WITH THE LOCAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
THESE COMPANIES EMPLOY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND PUBLISH OVER 62 MILLION
DIRECTORIES ANNUALLY.
CURRENTLY, TELEPHONE COMPANY PUBLISHERS HOLD OVER 96% OF THE TELEPHONE
DIRECTORY MARKET. REGIONAL BELL OPERATING COMPANIES (RBOC'S) ALONE CONTROL
82% OF THIS 9 BILLION DOLLAR MARKET. THIS IS A DEGREE OF HEGEMONY NEVER
APPROACHED BY COMPANIES LIKE IBM, GENERAL MOTORS, PROCTOR & GAMBLE, ANHEUSER
BUSCH AND U.S. STEEL, WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO DOMINATE THEIR FIELDS.
COMPETITION IS VALUABLE. INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS HAVE PIONEERED MOST OF THE
INNOVATIONS WHICH HAVE COME ABOUT IN THIS INDUSTRY INCLUDING, COUPONS, ZIP
CODE LISTINGS, SEATING DIAGRAMS, ETC.. INDEPENDENTS ALSO OFFER ADVERTISERS LOW
COST ALTERNATIVES TO THE DIRECTORIES PUBLISHED BY TELEPHONE COMPANIES AND HAVE
SERVED AS A CATALYST COMPELLING ALL PUBLISHERS TO IMPROVE THEIR PRODUCTS AND
BECOME MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF BOTH CONSUMERS AND ADVERTISERS.
ALL INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS RELY ON LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH TELEPHONE
COMPANIES (THEIR COMPETITORS) TO OBTAIN WHITE PAGE SUBSCRIBER LISTING
INFORMATION. THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL FACILITY FOR WHICH THERE ARE NO VIABLE
SUBSTITUTES. TELEPHONE COMPANIES HAVE THIS INFORMATION ONLY BECAUSE OF THEIR
STATUS AS PUBLIC UTILITIES, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY SUPERIOR ACUMEN.
BY MANIPULATING PRICING AND ACCESS TO WHITE PAGE INFORMATION OBTAINED AS A
RESULT OF THEIR REGULATED TELEPHONE FRANCHISE, THESE TELEPHONE COMPANIES ARE
ATTEMPTING TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION AND PERPETUATE THEIR MONOPOLY IN THE
UNREGULATED YELLOW PAGE ADVERTISING BUSINESS. AT THE SAME TIME THEIR WHOLLY-
OWNED DIRECTORY SUBSIDIARIES, WHO ARE UNREGULATED AND SELL YELLOW PAGE
ADVERTISING, HAVE UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION.
TELEPHONE COMPANIES HAVE ROUTINELY SUPPLIED LISTING INFORMATION TO
INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS ON REASONABLE TERMS FOR DECADES. ONLY SINCE JUDGE
GREENE'S 1984 BREAKUP OF AT&T AND THE ENSUING INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF
COMPETITION PROVIDED BY INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS HAVE TELCOS STARTED RESTRICTING
ACCESS TO WHITE PAGE LISTINGS AND DRAMATICALLY RAISING THE PRICE FOR SUCH
INFORMATION. RATE INCREASES OF 100%+ PER YEAR ARE NOT UNCOMMON.
INDEPENDENT DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS NEED, AND ARE WILLING TO PAY A FAIR PRICE TO
OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES' UNIQUE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE
NUMBER DATABASES. THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES HAVE CHOSEN TO EXPLOIT THEIR
EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THESE UNIQUE DATABASES TO EXTRACT PRICES THAT ARE MANY
MULTIPLES OF THEIR ACTUAL COSTS AND HAVE, THEREBY, NEEDLESSLY INCREASED THE
INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS' COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS.
A.D.P. POSITION SUMMARY (CONT'D)
THE MOST STRIKING EVIDENCE OF THIS IS THE EXTRAORDINARY VARIETY IN PRICES
TELEPHONE COMPANIES CHARGE AMONG COMPANIES AND WITHIN COMPANIES - FOR
EXACTLY THE SAME THING: ACCESS TO STANDARD, COMPUTERIZED DATABASES OF
TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBER LISTING INFORMATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRICE OF LISTINGS ON
MAGNETIC MEDIA VARY FROM 4 CENTS PER LISTING TO $2.50 PER LISTING. ONLY A
MONOPOLIST CAN ENGAGE IN SUCH DISCRIMINATORY PRICING. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR
RBOC'S TO CHARGE ONE PRICE TO NON-COMPETITORS (DIRECT MAIL COMPANIES ETC), WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY CHARGING VASTLY HIGHER PRICES TO INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS FOR
EXACTLY THE SAME INFORMATION.
ANTI-TRUST ACTION BY INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION IS DIFFICULT
BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS COSTS OF SUCH LITIGATION AND THE TREMENDOUS
DIFFERENCE IN SIZE BETWEEN INDEPENDENTS AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES. FEW
INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS HAVE THE RESOURCES TO LITIGATE AGAINST A UTILITY THAT CAN
LITIGATE ON A COST FREE BASIS BY CHARGING THE EXPENSES OF LITIGATION TO ITS RATE
PAYERS.
IF PRESENT TRENDS CONTINUE ALL INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS NATIONWIDE WILL
EVENTUALLY FAIL AND THE LIMITED COMPETITION WHICH DOES EXIST IN THIS INDUSTRY WILL
BE ELIMINATED.
THE ONLY VIABLE SOLUTION TO THIS SITUATION IS LEGISLATION WHICH INSURES
INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS ACCESS TO LISTING INFORMATION ON TERMS WHICH ARE
REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY. THIS IS NOT ONLY NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN
COMPETITION IN THE PRINTED DIRECTORY MEDIUM. IT IS ALSO ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO
FOSTER A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT WHEN DIRECTORIES MOVE INTO ELECTRONIC
FORMATS. COMPETITION IN FUTURE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION MARKETS WILL BE AS
DEPENDENT ON NON-DISCRIMINATORY ACCESS TO SUBSCRIBER LISTING INFORMATION AS
COMPETITION IN PRINT PRODUCTS IS TODAY.
FOR THE PAST 2½ YEARS ADP HAS HAD EXTENSIVE FAVORABLE CONTACT WITH NU-
MEROUS MEMBERS OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE. WE HAVE PROVIDED
DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING OUR CLAIMS OF TELCO MISCONDUCT TO THE HOUSE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE. WE HAVE SUBMITTED STATEMENTS INTO THE
RECORDS OF BOTH THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND COMMERCIAL & ECONOMIC LAW
SUBCOMMITTEES. OUR MEMBERSHIP HAS MADE MANY CONTACTS WITH MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE ARE ASKING ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO
SUPPORT AMENDMENTS TO PENDING LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD PREVENT TELEPHONE
COMPANIES FROM USING THEIR CONTROL OF WHITE PAGE LISTING INFORMATION IN A
PREDATORY OR DISCRIMINATORY MANNER.
ASSOCIATION OF DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS CAROL HILL EXEC. DIRECTOR (508)883-3688.