November 24, 1998

Mr. Michael Wade
President, Database Service Management, Inc.
6 Corporate Place
Room PYA - 1F286
Piscataway, NJ  08854-4157

                                                       Re:  RespOrg non-compliance with the set-aside 888
                              number right-of-first-refusal process -- Requirement
                              for specified RespOrgs to submit letters of
                              explanation by December 11, 1998

Dear Mr. Wade:

     The Bureau's letter to you dated April 15, 1998, initiated the process for subscribers to
exercise their right of first refusal to request 888 numbers that had been set aside for them.  It
required RespOrgs to give notice of this right to their subscribers.  Further, among other things, it
required RespOrgs, for each set-aside 888 number, to submit to DSMI either the subscriber's
request to accept or reject an 888 set-aside number, with documentation, or certification that the
subscriber did not respond to the notice.

     The Bureau's letter to you dated May 15, 1998, extended to August 21, 1998, the time for
RespOrgs to give the required notice to their subscribers, although it provided that requests
received from subscribers after that date must still be processed.  It also explained that the
certification that RespOrgs were required to provide for subscribers who did not respond must
include contact information containing the subscriber's name, address, and phone number, as
well as the date and means by which the RespOrg notified the subscriber.

     The attachment to this letter summarizes the RespOrgs' compliance with this process,
using information provided by your staff in response to the Bureau's request.  For each of 179
RespOrgs, the attachment shows the total percentage of requests and certifications of no response
reported to DSMI as of October 5, 1998, based on the RespOrg's initial count of set-aside 888
numbers as of July 1998.  It indicates that only 34 RespOrgs reported subscriber notification
results for all of their set-aside 888 numbers (100%).  Of the remaining 145 RespOrgs, 93
reported results for some but not all of their set-aside 888 numbers (0.1% to 99.7%), and 52 did
not report any results for their set-aside 888 numbers (0%).

     The Commission is concerned that a RespOrg's failure to report that it gave notice to each
of its set-aside 888 number subscribers may indicate that the RespOrg is operating in defiance of
Commission orders, that it is warehousing set-aside 888 numbers or the corresponding 800
numbers, or that it has falsely indicated that it has identified subscribers for those numbers.  The
Commission stated last year that it may penalize RespOrgs that warehouse toll free numbers, by
imposing forfeiture penalties on them or referring them to the Department of Justice to determine
whether a fine, imprisonment, or both are warranted, or may decertify them as RespOrgs.  It also
stated that RespOrgs that falsely indicate they have identified subscribers for particular numbers
may be criminally liable for false statements under Title 18 of the United States Code.  The
Commission stated as follows:

                         We conclude that the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction
          over the portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain
          to the United States, found at section 251(e)(1) of the
          Communications Act, as amended, authorizes the Commission to
          penalize RespOrgs that warehouse toll free numbers.  We may
          impose a forfeiture penalty under section 503(b).  In addition, if a
          person violates a provision of the Communications Act or a rule or
          regulation issued by the Commission under authority of the
          Communications Act, the Commission can refer the matter to the
          Department of Justice to determine whether a fine, imprisonment, or
          both are warranted under section 501 or section 502 of the
          Communications Act.  We also may limit any RespOrg's allocation
          of toll free numbers or possibly decertify it as a RespOrg under
          section 251(e)(1) or section 4(i).  In addition, RespOrgs that falsely
          indicate that they have identified subscribers for particular numbers
          may be liable for false statements under Title 18 of the United States
          Code.... (footnotes omitted).

Toll Free Service Access Codes, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 95-155, 12 F.C.C. Rcd. 11162 (1997).

     In light of the above enforcement policy, the Bureau in this letter directs DSMI to
forward a copy of this letter, with the attachment, to all RespOrgs.  With this letter, the Bureau
directs all RespOrgs that have reported less than 100% subscriber results to submit a letter to the
Commission's Common Carrier Bureau, Network Services Division, by December 11, 1998,
explaining why the process required by the Bureau was not completed as directed.  Such
RespOrgs must also describe any action they have taken or are now taking to remedy this
apparent non-compliance with their legal obligations.  The names of RespOrgs that fail to
provide satisfactory explanation in their letters or that fail to submit letters altogether will be
referred to the Bureau's Enforcement Division for action in accord with the Commission's
enforcement policy.

                                   Sincerely, 



                                   Anna M. Gomez
                                   Chief
                                   Network Services Division
                                   Common Carrier Bureau