DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

1/201

Cataldi & AssociatesAir Web Communications

Request for Formal Investigation

Air Web Communications & C&A Vs. Time Warner03-24-2005

-- Proprietary and Confidential -- Version:1d

Page: 1 of 201

03-24-2005

Request for formal, criminal, antitrust investigation; investigation and discoveryPrepared for the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice - New York City

(prepared without the aid of legal counsel)

Regarding the matters arising out of the provisioning of the dedicated lease line interconnectingAir Web Communications facilities located at 60 Hudson and 620 Isham:

Cataldi & Associates, Inc. (d/b/a Air Web Inwood, Air Web Communications)and Mr. James A. Cataldi, Mr. Vincent J. Cataldi, Dr. Horace A. Cataldi PhD Chem. Engr.

Vs.

Time Warner Cable of New York City - Commercial Services d/b/a Road Runner Soho - Commercial Services, located at, orconducting operations out of AOL - 7

thfloor at 120 East 23

rdStreet, NYC, and their implicated and controlling affiliates, including,

ServiceCos d/b/a Road Runner Soho, Road Runner, or Road Runner Holding (VA), AOL Holding (VA), AOL/TWC and others.

Cogent Communications, Comm.

NY-NJ Wholesale Internet provider

Carrier-Class Cross-Connect

Telex VOIP Fabric

National & International

SIP 2.0 Telephone

Time Warner Cable

of New York City

Secure-Redundant

Self-managed dedicated leased line

Cataldi & Associates, Inc.2516 East Menlo Boulevard.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin.53211

620 IshamStreet, New York10034

An Air Web Communications Initiative

Tomorrows premier value-addedcommunications provider.

Telex Co-location Facility

Tenancy Location @ 9th Floor (rack)

60 Hudson - 620 Islam

Wholesale e-commerce, Internet &

local and international phone

exchange interconnectivity

Meet-Me Room & Patch Panel

Semi-annual Conventions

Discount Telephone Provisioning

Point-to-Point Leased-Line Project

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

2/201





Page: 2 of 201

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO FEDERAL COMPLAINT.............................................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION AND DISCOVERY ................................................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER 3: COMPLAINT SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 4: TWC BAIT & SWITCH OPERATIONS SUMMARY...... ............. ............ .............. ............ .............. ............. ............ .............. ..... 16

CHAPTER 5: TWC BAIT & SWITCH OPERATIONS BREAKDOWN.............. ............ .............. ............ .............. ............. ............ .............. ..... 17

CHAPTER 6: RESTRUCTURE TRANSACTIONS - ELIMINATE ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS................. .............. ............ ............. .......... 20

CHAPTER 7: AIRWEB TIMEWARNER AGREEMENT SUMMARY............................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 8: KEY TIME FRAMES................................................................................................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX (A) - DOCUMENT CHANGE SUMMARY ........... .............. ............. ............ .............. ............ .............. ............. ............ .............. ..... 31

APPENDIX (B) - IMPACT ON NYC TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKETS...................... .............. ............ ............. ............ .............. .............. 33

APPENDIX (C) - LEGAL ENVIRONMENT................. ............ .............. ............. ............ .............. ............ .............. ............. ............ .............. ..... 34

APPENDIX (D) - CATALDI& ASSOCIATES, NEW YORK CITY BUSINESS HISTORY............. ............. ............ .............. ............. ............. ... 37

APPENDIX (E) - LETTERSOF INTENT........... .............. ............ ............. ............ .............. .............. ............ ............. ............ .............. ............. . 40

APPENDIX (F) - AWC UPTOWNWIRELESS BUILD....................................................................................................................................... 41

APPENDIX (G) - NEIGHBORHOOD-PORTAL SERVICE OFFERING...... ............. ............ .............. .............. ............ ............. .............. ........... 43

APPENDIX (H) - RATES AND FEES................ ............. ............. ............ .............. ............. ............. ............. ............ .............. ............. ............. ... 44

APPENDIX (I) - PARTIES IDENTIFIED .............. .............. ............ ............. ............ .............. ............. ............. ............. ............ .............. ............. . 45

APPENDIX (J) - ANALYSIS OF TWC COVER LETTER AUGUST 31ST

2004..... .............. ............ .............. ............ ............. ............ ............. 47

APPENDIX (K) - COVER LETTERS FROM DR. HORACE CATALDI ANDMR. JAMES CATALDI.............. ............. ............ .............. .............. 50

APPENDIX (L) - BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOUND ON INTERNET... .............. ............ .............. ............. ............ .............. ............ ........ 57

APPENDIX (K) - COMMPORTAL: SOURCE CODE FOR WIRE FRAUD #2............. ............. .............. ............ .............. ............ ............. .......... 61

APPENDIX (L) - DOWNLOAD-SPEED TEST - SOURCE CODEFOR WIRE FRAUD #1.................................................................................. 65

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

3/201





Page: 3 of 201

Chapter 1: Introduction to Federal Complaint

In our judgment, over the past 14 months, Time Warner Cable of New York and others including ServiceCo d/b/a RoadRunner or Road Runner Holding (TWC), engaged in criminal conduct, including at least one felony, against Air WebCommunications (AWC), a division of Cataldi and Associates, Inc. (C&A).

Directly arising from or inextricably linked to this criminal predatory conduct, TWC committed a series of successivediscriminatory, antitrust and exclusionary acts against AWC and C&A, which relate to Time Warner (Time Warner/AOL), andServiceCo d/b/a Road Runner or Road Runners Holding (SC) unlawfully maintaining or extending Time Warners subsidiarysmonopoly power, and SCs market power (pre-existing AOL Merger arrangement) in Local Internet Access, Service and

Content and Digital TV Network and Local Access, Operations and Programming. Time Warner and SC also attempts toillegally dominate the newly emerging New York State Telephone and Wireless Markets.

We believe that TWC violated the Sherman Act, unlawfully maintaining monopoly power in the above referenced markets inAWCs Region by stalking, legally entrapping (by relying on forgeries and mail fraud and interstate wire artifices) then denyingAWC reasonable access to, (and yet billing out for, now over $75,000.00 and on-going) network facilities over which TWC has amonopoly. AWC seeks to provide internet access, telephone and related wireless network (and wireless programming andentertainment) operations and services in competition with TWC, and that our service packages are superior in price andperformance to TWC's competing services. However, because AWC's market entry and service offerings pose a real threat toTWC's monopoly power in the Local Internet Access and Telephone Markets in the TWC Regions which AWC attempts to enter,TWC has engaged in a wide variety of unlawful, exclusionary and anticompetitive acts which rely on or arise from criminal andfraudulent acts, with the intent and inevitable effect of injuring, thwarting or eliminating AWC as an actual or potential competitor.TWCs malicious behavior is detrimental to AWC, and residents and workers of New York City, Southern New York State, andNorthern New Jersey.

TWC controls the facilities which TWC legally entrapped AWC into, however refuses to give promised access. TWC could havegranted AWC access to these facilities and, indeed, promised to do so. AWC and TWC entered into an interconnection

agreement, as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But, TWC acted with the intent to maintain and extend itsmonopoly power and position in the above referenced markets, and continues to legally entrap AWC into a fraudulentinterconnection agreement, billing AWC for fraudulent services (denial of service at 15 sites) and deny AWC access to promisedparts of TWCs network that AWC requires to provide its services. We have identified numerous ways TWC has engaged inanticompetitive conduct; much of our case goes well beyond duties imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and TWC'sfailures to meet them. As a result of TWC's actions, AWC alleges, "competition in the relevant markets has been injured, AWChas been damaged, and TWC continues to dominate these markets to the detriment of consumers and competition. We contendthat this course of conduct violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act at a minimum.

Because the antitrust and exclusionary conduct and associated discriminatory behavior is directly arising from this criminalconduct or inextricably linked to this criminal conduct, we believe that AWCs allegations against TWC should be considered as'freestanding antitrust claims' outside the coverage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Thus, although we are not preciselyclear as to the standard that would apply to AWCs complaint, we believe that our criminal antitrust claim should not bedismissed, and a formal DOJ Criminal Antitrust investigation should commence because our claim is not inextricably linked to theclaims under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in our judgment, and therefore should be "'divorced from the 1996 Actcontext'" and be freestanding". We believe that AWCs antitrust claims are not "barred by the 1996 Act as construed and appliedin the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Goldwasser v. Ameritech Corp., 222 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2000). AWC seeksdamages, and injunctive relief.

(NOTE: Regarding the claims against SC , Road Runner Commercial Services are clearly, directly and 100% secretly (with100% denial on the part of TWC) involved and inextricably linked to the case, as we have strong circumstantial evidence that TWor Time Warner Telecom is closely implicated in the case. In our reasoned, informed judgment, after extensive analysis of thetwo wire fraud artifices (along with an extensive amount of other evidence) we are confident that SC is directly involved, andtherefore the claims against SC should be divorced by 1996 Act context and free standing, even if Time Warner Cable of NewYorks direct antitrust claims are found to be barred by the 1996 Act), in our judgment.)

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

4/201





Page: 4 of 201

Result of 8 months of intense in-house investigation

After 8 months, our in-house investigation worked to collect, organize, analyze and document a compelling case (with over 300meg of core-data, and several giga bits of supporting data, much of which is not yet analyzed); compelling enough to persuadeus to request a formal investigation, and request immediate injunctive relief demanding that TWC be compelled to deliverinterconnectivity to 60 Hudson, according to, or superior to, the terms contractually obligating AWC and TWC:

1. Individuals representing TWC and its controlling affiliates (and others), participated knowingly, willingly, and collusively toprofit, or would have benefited substantially from TWCs gross misconduct (as stated herein or which may bedetermined through an investigation), with reckless disregard to the laws designed to protect and promote competitivemarkets, competition, customer welfare, customer benefits or customer surplus.

2. TWC committed these criminal acts (identified herein) against AWC, and subsequently additional acts to cover-up theinitial crimes, and/or attempt to legally protect TWC from these criminal acts:o with intent and effect to impose unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerceo as an immediate and direct consequence of these acts are knowingly harming New York Citys Consumers and

Free Competition, in violation of sections of: Sherman Acts Clayton Acts Uniform Commercial Code Other regulatory violations

3. TWC cold-call contacted AWC with aggressive marketing, stalking, and so these acts are malicious and egregious.4. TWCs criminal acts against AWC, were conspired, premeditative, planed and organized.5. TWC coordinated a cover-up and other on-going acts to destroy evidence of the criminal acts against AWC, thus prevent

the free-standing nature of our claim.6. TWC relied on mail, e-mail, telephone, residential digital cable TV network, Competitor-owned or operated

networks/operation centers, and data centers in several states and wire fraud artifices, thus felonies in an interstate,federal venue.

7. TWC, through criminal, unethical or illegal actions and inaction, on the part of its employees, officers and affiliates,committed exclusionary acts, and criminal exclusionary aided and assisted others in predatory efforts against AWC, tosuccessfully obtain moneys relying on two false and misleading wire artifices.

8. TWC illegally conspired to illegally share AWC trade-secret information positioning TWC affiliates to compete with AWC.9. TWC coordinated efforts between organized groups of people (in various companies) to illegally increase artificial market

barriers, market power, concentration and duration.

Forgeries and Mail Fraud, Wire frauds and illegal provisioning and fraudulent billing

TWC Criminal conduct against AWC and C&A included:

Document forgeries (official client copies forged after signing, Feb 10 2005 TWC states no originals exist, and whatis the difference?) and mail fraud, (and fax).

Illegal provisioning and fraudulent billing of service, un authorized activation of service not in accordance with Order Two wire artifices to obtain money(s) and legally entrap AWC (Road Runner Update-Server and CommPortal)

We believe that the service as provisioned and validated by TWC, was solely intended to derive benefit in a manor substantiallysimilar to the definition of wire fraud and support, facilitate or was inextricably linked to the discriminatory, antitrust and

exclusionary acts, as expressed herein, and as amended through a formal criminal antitrust investigation. The most serious ofTWCs criminal acts committed against AWC, in our opinion, from which the antitrust exclusionary acts arose, fall into two groups:

1. Document forgeries and mail fraud: Forgeries of legal execution documents / Service Order Forms and allegedattached terms and conditions, and attachments which are currently active in full force.

2. Wire Fraud: TWC Road Runner / AOL wire-artifice employed to obtain money and to deceive AWC into acceptingfraudulent service unfit for our use, and entrap and legally bind AWC through AWCs formal service acceptance.

3. Illegal provisioning and fraudulent billing of service:, no authorization to initiate service, not in accordance with Order

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

5/201





Page: 5 of 201

TWC and its affiliates engaged in continuous criminal activities between February and August 2004, and they continue cover-upoperations currently, insisting AWC place new service order requests, using the internet, for services already contractuallycommitted. In our judgment to deceive and entrap AWC into Accepting unauthorized services which were only half provisioned,and completely unfit for AWC requirements. The apparent main objective of the forgeries was to facilitate a second signing ofService Order Forms and then clean-up legal exposure to the initial fraudulent acts; however this backfired on TWC, as describedbelow.

The clear objective of the wire frauds was employed to obtain money and legally bind AWC through deceptive artifice which wasdesigned to falsify user acceptance test results (first wire fraud), or SLA (service level agreement) statistics (second wirefraud), to give the illusion that the un-authorized, half provisioned service, installed at 620 Isham Street was actually operationalas guaranteed in the March 25

thForged Client Copies: Attachment A, Section 4 (see appendix - General Description Of Services:

ENET and ELINE).

The second forgery hides evidence of the first forgery, with regard to specifying ENET and ELINE as a carrier-grade service(99.999% and 99.99%). The two frauds were employed by TWC in an attempt to demonstrate that the TWC service provided toAWC is in accordance with the description of the forged sections (March 25

thforgery) of the February 26

thdocuments.

NOTE: Last copy of the paperwork was received on February 10th 2005, see James Cataldi cover letter

1) Forgeries: official client copies delivered formally by fax and mail are forged on two occasions in 2004, March 25th

, andAugust 31

st. (March and August copies are different). Received a copy of the March forgery again on February 10

th2005 by

hand (copy came from Sales Reps files at formal meeting, Manager made copy against advice of TWC legal counsel).TWC also employed grossly misrepresentative e-mails, e-mail attachments, and telephone calls to support themisrepresentations made in Attachment A, Section 4, of the March 25

thForgery of the client copy of February 26

thOrder

Form and Terms & Conditions documents, with regard to the grade, quality, or availability of service to be expected withELINE and ENET services. AWC signed two Order Forms in June, thus superseding the February Order Forms, also signed.

Illegally and fraudulently legally bind AWC with discriminatory exclusionary terms, then deny AWC access toTWC network, (while TWC continues to bill AWC for service being denied (15 locations; distributed denial ofservice in our judgment), over promised network segments for carrier grade Interconnection between 60Hudson and 620 Isham, as required.

After AWC signed documents and without AWC consent or knowledge TWC swapped out TWC carrier gradeinterconnection service interconnection agreement by forging the February 26

thOrder Form (TWC stated in

Feb 10th 2005 meeting: original no longer exists, when we demanded to see our file) with consumer gradeRoad Runner Service. Swapped out service employed AOL and Road Runner infrastructure in some casesoperating out or being registered in V.A., (and in other aspects) by altering legally enforce documents and lyingabout what was to be delivered, (not denying what AWC ordered or delaying).

2) Wire Fraud: (Phone, Internet, Cable-TV Fraud) Two successive (Download-Site and CommPortal), fraudulent, Service-Level-Agreements (SLA) user-acceptance testing & verification artifices which were specifically custom-built, and owned by,or utilized programmers (CHEUNG) from Road Runner, and was hosted by and utilized network resources from AOL V.A. orover networks (RRMA) and with registrants who identify themselves as Road Runner Holding : RR6-DOM (network traces.).TWC designed, developed and deployed these two wire artifices, specifically and solely to deceive AWC into believing thatTWC delivered what AWC ordered, and to legally bind or commit AWC through the legal trap of service provision acceptance(and commence billing). The two wire (internet / intranet) artifices were hosted at COMMPORTAL_NEBIZ_NYC_RR.COMand also supported by www.ams-server.com.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

6/201





Page: 6 of 201

Horizontal and Vertical ForeclosuresIn our judgment, TWCs predatory activities involved both horizontal and vertical foreclosure strategies including nine major Bait& Switch operations. TWC focused on switching AWC out of Telex, a world class carrier neutral co-location facility and POPlocated at 60 Hudson and into a competitor owned and operated facility which is implementing discriminatory practices andstandards manipulations.

The wire artifices and the unauthorized fraudulent internet service provisioned at 620 Isham Street, appear to directly link to ourprimary competitors, America on Line and Road Runner from facility locations and over network circuits which change with time.Additionally our competitors appear to have directly supported the wire frauds.

These fraudulent acts lie at the heart of, and are the vehicle through which TWC intended to:

1. Implement Antitrust Exclusionary Acts2. Protect TWC from the legal consequences of the criminal acts

We believe that TWC acted with reckless disregard towards consumer welfare, benefits and surplus, in order to:

1. Maintain or extend market power duration2. Maintain or increase concentration of market power

We believe that TWC must have perceived AWC was too significant a threat to their market-power in the following Time WarnerCable of New Yorks existing markets and emerging Markets:

1. Internet Access Provider (IAP), Internet Service Provider (ISP), Internet Content Provider (ICP)2. New York State, National and International Telephone3. Cable TV programming (Franchised Monopoly)

a. Pay-per-view programmingb. Movies and other Programming on demandc. High Definition TV

These predatorily acts thwarted AWCs ability to operate profitable neighborhood telecommunications networks in New York City,and to sell next generation network products and services in business to business, business to consumer, and consumer toconsumer markets, using a one-Stop-Shop customer-service franchise-model:

1. Local Content Originator2. Carrier neutral communications co-location and network operator3. Neighborhood Wireless Network4. Internet content, service, access provider5. Local & International Telephone - SIP 2.0 VOIP

a. Audiob. Multimedia

6. Neighborhood Portal & market nichesa. Network Computer Gamingb. School & Retailc. e-Commerced. Transaction Portal

e. Multimedia Phonef. Advertising

Arising from TWCs intentional market foreclosure, all New York City consumers are denied the right to choose from a multiplicityof innovative, interoperable, state-of-the-art network products and services. AWCs near-wholesale-priced, network complementsinteroperate with both TWCs network (Optical Digital Ethernet) and AWC Wireless open-systems, standards-compliantnetworks (M1 and 802.11); both incumbent and entrant networks.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

7/201





Page: 7 of 201

Chapter 2: Request for Investigation and Discovery

We respectfully request the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, in New York City, investigate this matter todetermine whether criminal acts and other regulatory violations were committed, and if any antitrust exclusionary acts wereinextricably linked to these criminal acts. And to determine if the antitrust acts arising out of document forgeries, mail and wirefraud activities and other associated gross misconduct are considered a free standing antitrust claims or whether these claimsare still inextricably linked to the claims under the 1996 Act'". And if the acts are divorced from the1996 Act context" andfreestanding", then to finally to determine what competitive impact in New York City, Southern New York State, and NorthernNew Jersey these acts may have caused this past year and in the near term.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

8/201





Page: 8 of 201

Chapter 3: Complaint Summary

We identify the following exclusionary acts which we believe are free standing acts, not covered in the coverage of theTelecommunications Act of 1996:

1. Excessive restrictions of trade2. Antitrust tyingto competitors products3. Discriminatory Policies and Practices:

a. Pricingb. Standards-Manipulationc. Interconnection to TWC network

d. Network Edge Device Selection, installation, configuratione. Gross Misrepresentations, and Misconduct - verbal, electronic, writtenf. Sub-standard Service-Provisioningg. Little or no separation between:

1. TWC Business Services Unit, Road Runner, and AOL2. TWC infrastructure and infrastructure of affiliates which are AWCs main competitors: Road Runner, AOL3. Other TWC business units directly competing with AWC4. Other business units within TWC relying on TWC affiliates who are AWCs main competitors5. Other Business units associated with New House Networks, with controlling interests in Time Warner

Entertainment and Time Warner Telecom

TWCs actions (and inaction when action was the appropriate good faith response), have the following immediate specific non-recoverable adverse impact on AWCs market entry attempts:

1. Consume 14 months of critical time to market2. Deny AWC the ability to be first to market with new, improved, more cost effective and beneficial service offerings and

first to secure air wave rights by repeatedly thwarting AWC from acting on the in-house efforts3. Deny AWC carrier-grade quality connectivity to the AWC tenant location in the TELx Facility at 60 Hudson required to

enter and successfully compete in the New York City and surrounding area Markets by eliminating or substantiallyreducing the following AWC network benefits:

a. Abundant supply of carrier-grade, standards-compliant, complement suppliersb. Wholesale rates and volumesc. Cost effective cross connections to interconnect to other carriers or communications providers which reside at

the TELx co-location facility to pick up carrier grade internet, telephone (local , national and internationalexchange) and e-commerce services (i.e. SWIFT, CHIPS)

d. Scalable, cost-effective operations support-services: and facility infrastructure and technical support servicese. Access to other consumer markets

4. Financially and legally bind and encumber AWC for years:Obligate AWC to pay additional $500,000 (about $540,000 in total) for fraudulent serviceunfit for use, in part relying on the following:

a. General1. verbal and written misrepresentations2. vague, dishonest, misleading and duplistic communications, correspondence and documentations3. multiple contractual fraud (post signing forgeries)4. wire artifice

5. intimidation (most serious case involved threat of Union Men were in the area)6. wire (download site and communications service portal)7. service fraud (ENET, ELINE)8. trade secret theft

b. Specific1. Discriminatory and excessively restrictive language including the 100% early termination charge on AWCs

Service Order Forms, based on a comparison of the Order Forms AWC See Equitable Life of the USdocumentation included in this document packet. Note: signed a contract by the same people in the businessunit, under the name Road Runner Soho- Commercial Services.

2. Bankrupt AWC, preventing AWCs Market Entry in New York City.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

9/201





Page: 9 of 201

3. Obtained $12,000.00; which AWC pre-paid in good faith June 2004, with the understanding that TW wouldhonor the verbal promises, and in particular accommodate 38 points of contention (first reference to Feb 26order being ENET was August 31

st2004. (Road Runner content, resources or network in hiding, TWC has

denied upwards near 100 times).4. Billing AWC $90,000.00 past due (plus $12,000 pre-paid) for 8 months of non-existent services. (1/5 of total

contract so far) AWC did not authorize, consent to an activation date, nor issue a P.O. AWC issuednumerous legal notices, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth, to TWC in via e-mail last yearstarting our extreme dissatisfaction. $90,000 quoted on February 10

th2005, by TWC Legal Counsel. Later in

the same meeting (at 120 east 23rd

street), the Marketing Manager, stated in essence that since we hadnever used the service we would not be charged. When Cataldi (AWC) asked if AWC could also get ourdown payment back the answer was Yes. However after negotiations broke down, over the past week, thebilling department called, at the same time we were not sent a bill for about one month (we assume that theoffer was taken away).

5. Obtained $12,000.00; which AWC pre-paired in good faith June 2004, with the understanding that TW would honor theverbal promises, and in particular accommodate 38 points of contention (first reference to Feb 26 order being ENET wasAugust 31st 2004. (Road Runner content, resources or network in hiding, TWC has denied upwards near 100 times).

6. Make available to others as well as illegally act upon & benefit from AWCs trade secrets and proprietary documents,and initial test traffic, as well as AWC field testing results, R&D lessons learned, strategic and tactical risk managementplans and other insider knowledge. We have collected evidence of our business plans being implemented on specificweb sites. We believe that our plan or parts or our plan is being implemented and being acted on by at a regional andnational level as well as a local level after TWC shut down our 2004 uptown wireless build initiative. We believe that thefollowing had access to our business plan are now implementing components of the AWC business plan:

a. New House Network Stockholders common to Time Warner Entertainmentb. TW Telecom or Time Warner Telecomc. Road Runner Holdingd. Netifac (co-location cross connects)e. Time Warner Cable of New York Private Networks.

f. Time Warner Cable (Stanford Conn.)g. Time Warner Cable of New York and New Jersey Business Servicesh. NY Connecti. SohoWare j. Road Runner Soho Commercial Services

7. Diminish AWC name-recognition and reputation, and harm the reputation of AWCs associates and principals for futureattempts to enter the market. Discourage small businesses from entering the market, or attempting to receive fair andopen access to the TW network, or access to the internet, or access to TELx.

TWCs predatory behavior has successfully barred AWC market entry into New York City and surrounding markets and thuspreventing AWC from implementing its s proprietary 2004-2009 business plan which was tested and refined over the past 5years:

1. AWC conducted an extensive research / analysis effort in:a. financial models: sensitivities and forecastsb. legal (FCC), regulatory and court precedent

c. medical-health and mitigated RF transmission level strategiesd. highly integrated vertical, horizontal and emerging (new) marketse. competitive landscapef. surveys/analysis: area/neighborhood(s) RF interference / bandwidth utilization requirementsg. technical and needs requirements

2. AWC documentation development:a. strategic community relationsb. extensive plan development and testing

i. long term strategic and short term tacticalii. financial / business (5 year)iii. marketing / sales

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

10/201





Page: 10 of 201

iv. technicalv. medical/ healthvi. legal/ regulatory compliance/ mitigated RF initiatives : FCC rulingsvii. neighborhood economic redevelopment / revitalization

c. core competence/ best practices and standards development:i. dealing with service continuityii. signal strength requirements vs. RF capacityiii. speed vs. securityiv. interference and echoes and other site survey/ operational parameters

under every conceivable environmental condition

3. AWC implemented formal Technical and Process Research & Development initiatived. feasibility, security, business continuity, disaster recovery, distance/capacity testse. trials and pilots

4. AWC established commitments with:f. customers and prospects (Business to Consumer and Business to Business)g. equipment supplier with quota commitments (transmitters-antenna configuration) with FCC certification

authorizing unlicensed operation in 802.11 and M1h. technical expertise and world class human resourcesi. obtaining roof rights for transmitters and other related equipment j. investors and investor prospects

Criminal & Anti-Trust Violations: after an extensive investigation & analysis ourinvestigation determined that TWC employed the following:

1. Seven (7) different sounds-likeBait & Switch schemes (Time Warner said one thing, did another, or changed what theysaid, or made a play on words)

2. Fraudulent representations grossly-mislead apparent authorization, timing, nature, or other implications regarding:a. AWC received an entirely fraudulent service, with none on the salient benefits were promised and relied at contract

signing verbally.b. no AWC authorization or consent for key service activation stages:

i. SLA (service level agreement guarantee)ii. Street Cut (cut at Isham and Seaman)iii. Fiber Pull (lateral connection/attachment at 207th and Seaman Avenue, Northern Manhattan)iv. Provisioning (pursuant to Orders)v. client approved test and turn upvi. successful compliance testing resolution of non-compliance

- resolution of non-compliance -cant even agree what we bought and TWC soldc. Pre-Paid Only Status as per contract, and yet TWC is still billing $9K/mo., 7 months after TWC alleges that Service

was activated (an allegation we dispute).d. On going fraudulent billing: The contract states that the cut-off date could be no later then 67 days past due, AWC pre-

paid 30 days, so last date of billable service could be no later than 97 days after Service Activation (no activation date).After 97 Days TWC should have suspend the account.After extensive negations and TWC concessions (38 points of mutually recognized contention).

e. Due Date (actual legally Binding Date), with no legitimate or authorized Activation or Service Date?f. AWC disputes the actual first day of billing, AWC disputes what is being billed for specifically.g. Specific contract terms changed through forgeries.h. We challenge exactly what are the legitimate Terms and Conditions legally in-force today.i. We demand to know who had authority and signed off on:

i. Sign -up & trap AWC from the cold-call start.ii. swap dedicated leased lines with Road Runner and AOL or assets of other TWE affiliatesiii. TWE affiliates internet-monitoring of, or traffic analysis of AWC or clientsiv. Circuit design appears to have changed several times over the past year without AWC consent

Who authorized, performed and for what purposev. AWC principal Cataldi residential and commercial services attached to same network. We suspect extreme service

fraud - Seaman Avenue Residential Fiber Optic cable-TV network, AOL network, Road Runner network.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

11/201





Page: 11 of 201

j. AWC private traffic circuitouslytraverse headquarters of Time Warner, Road Runner, AOL in V.A.

3. After signing TWC adds additional document (Attachment D) to the February 26th

2004 legal execution document set: Withno reference to Attachment D, as other attachments do. Dedicated Leased Line Service Order Form, Terms and Conditiondocument, Attachment A, Attachment B, Attachment C. Without consent from or knowledge of AWC, TWC is claiming thatTWC sent the ENET attachment on February 26

th2004.

4. We were not made aware of any Attachment D: Additional Terms and conditions for ENET customers. To the best of ourknowledge, there was no attachment D present on February 26

th2004. A day or so later we are offered free internet, so we

did not understood that TWC would state that AWC actually purchased ENET, which is actually Road Runner in hiding, onour judgment. Yet that is now what TWC (See cover letter)

5. Forges AWCs only copy of Legal execution documents on March 25th

, 26th

, August 31st

2004, without knowledge or notice,or consent for TWC changes in any of the language associated with AWC signatures on February 26th 2004, see OfficialClient Copies sent formally to AWC at 620 Isham on March 25

thby both Fax and by Private carrier.

6. Bait & Switch: attaching Superior Technical Specifications to greatly Inferior Service (by design) (from carrier grade TELxinterconnect (the quality required to provide services solid enough to provide a real alternative to the current telephone andcable operators,) to consumer grade Road Runner third party ISP).See March 25

th Official Client forgery copy Attachment A, Section 4.

7. Execution Document Language (order forms and legally attached (or claimed to be)terms and conditions and attachments;a. Violates: 1) Uniform Commercial Code , 2) Rule of Reason, and 3) NYC Monopoly Franchise Agreementb. Imposes excessive restrictions to interstate trade and commercec. Grants unreasonable Unilateral Rights to TWC

1. any/all rights TWC deems necessary to protect network or business2. cancel relationship or modify terms, pricing or level of service, within 30 days without need for cause3. excessive, unreasonable access to AWC traffic and information, citing Patriot / Homeland Defense Act

a. to collect monitor, analyze and share

b. to filter, modify, or remove contentc. TWC grants its self the right to access:

1. Public and private web sites2. E-mails3. Web severs4. Network traffic5. Client computers6. Air Web facilities and server farms

d. Sets up legal basis for TWC to obtain moneys under fraudulent artificee. Sets up legal basis for TWC to Impose Discriminatory Policies to:

1. Increase artificial barriers to New York City market entry2. Eliminate or significantly reduce AWC network effects and potential network effects3. Act upon our Trade Secrets, including possibly setting up or supporting dummy competitors

8. Discriminatory - Fraudulent Business Practicesa. Illegally swapped out what was being offered. It changed from lease-line interconnectivity into Road Runners Internet

Service Provider with out notice or consent.

b. Fraudulent billing practices used in conjunction to forged and discriminatory service terms imposed on AWC by TWC,and false, deceptive representation and two fraudulent wire artifices

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

12/201





Page: 12 of 201

9.Discriminatory Standards Degrading Manipulationsa. Standard of promised Service - from Open System Interoperability Standard to proprietary Nortel-standardb. Quality, Grade and Priority of service offered (not be confused with the network itself (swapped from Highest to Lowest)c. Grade, Quality, and Network Element to carry service (not to be confused with the actual service being offered)

(swapped from state of art to antiquated technology)d. Reliability of service promised (from Highly Dependable to Completely-Unreliable)e. Level of Ethernet Service (swapped from Level 3 carrier quality to a Level 1 Layer which is exclusively used to support

end-consumer quality) Level 1 is not appropriate to support Carriers like AWC.f. Term of Service (from 2 separate 5 year term contracts, which would be run back to back giving AWC coverage for 10

years, TWC ended the contract eight months before it started, after February 26th

2004 when AWC signed the contractsgiving TWC unreasonable and excessive control and access to all aspects of the contract in any manner TWCdetermines without cause in no more than 30 days.

g. Service Level Agreement Guarantee (from detailed, verifiable Measurements assured, to total lack of documentation asto what was actually offered)

10. Eliminated benefits associated with tenancyat Telex: 60 Hudson Street:Cross Connection Access enabling AWC to pickup a multiplicity of near-wholesale priced complements; this is a physicalconnection to hundreds of Suppliers and Consumers of Wholesale Carrier-Grade complements from Tenants residing at theTELx facility, where there is a nominal one-time charge, to hook-up with any other TELx tenant, regardless of the bandwidth.

11. Thwarted AWC business, technical, engineering, operations, risk management, and market-entry plans:a. Lost ability to:

i. Manage sunk costs during market entry phaseii. Maintain technical environmental consistencyiii. Maintain business continuityiv. Act on offer to join Telex with privileged-access to carrier class resources:

1. security2. fire suppression3. power, surge and backup resources4. technicians

5. telecommunications equipment resources sharing, and operations management6. cross connects (patch panels in meet me room) (this is how AWC connects to the outside world)7. standards compliant cross connects (to local, national, international carriers, other tenants)8. cost effective cross connects: inter-city, intra-city

9. privileges associated with being a Telecommunications Wholesale exchange membera. wholesale ratesb. knowledgec. right to interconnect to carriers & other telecommunications providers using Telex carrier tenantsd. right to attend semi-annual conferences, (mini telecommunications stock exchange)

12. Inadequate-Circuit Design and Provision-DesignThrough selection of equipment, and the method of its attachment to the network, TWC insured that AWC can not providefull duplex, two-way, real-time, SIP 2.0 multimedia applications, which is at the heart of our internal communications protocolarchitecture. TWC selected seriously an inferior or ill-suited Client Adaptor, a Network Edge Device.

13. Discriminatoryinstallation, configuration andprovisioning of client equipment at 620Isham

The requirements necessitate that AWC be on a private UNI header, which will encapsulate AWC from the other traffic onTWCs network. However instead of being on private LAN (encapsulate us) TWC placed us on a public shared LAN(ENET), where our traffic has the same multicast membership as other Road Runner users. We were to have an isolatedcircuit.

Inadequate selection by TWC of client-equipment at 620 Islam, supports multifamily dwelling not wireless neighborhoodThis is not a carrier grade Edge Device, even if it were provisioned in good faith.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

13/201





Page: 13 of 201

14. Need twofiber-opticcables attaching AWCto TWCnetwork, only one pulled, only one fiber attachedTWC intentionally employs discriminatory practices to minimize AWC potential-effect through network architecture-design, asthe service can only run in half duplex. Further there is no backup-line if the primary line goes down. Only one fiber waslaterally attached, connected to the main fiber line running down Seaman Avenue, therefore the 620 Islam service can neverrun in full duplex as our SIP 2.0 multimedia-telephone services and communication applications require.

Carrier-grade interconnection requires two separate, dedicated, fiber-optic cables running from 207th

Street and SeamanAvenue terminating at 620 Islam Street, into the Media-Dependent-Adaptor, which connects the OM 1200 ESM, the clientequipment or network edge device selected and installed by TWC despite AWC technical objections.

TWCs Service Level Guarantee requires one dedicated gigabit channel down-stream running over one cable, and a second,separate fiber-optic cable supporting a separate, dedicated, gigabit up-stream only channel. Further TWC design didnt takeadvantage to the 2 buffer design, or the 12 strand cable that was installed.

15. Inadequate ClientNetwork Edge DeviceSelection of Near-side network device into AWC tenancy area as Service Order AWC approved requires that TWC select aninferior or ill suited Client Network Edge Device, (TWCs equipment installed on 3rd floor of 620 Islam). Even if configured tomaximum settings, this network edge-device is intended to support only a multi-family dwelling or mute tenant dwelling, not aminimum of thousands of users. (60 Hudson Telex tenancy-location equipment was never installed or provisioned)

16. No adequateSecurity: does notsupport required network securitymeasures:a. authentication - supports lowest authentication protocolb. privacy - there is no privacy protocol supported

17. Inadequate Device to Network interface:network-to-network interface (NNI) - backpanela. TWC installed only of the connectivity physically. TWC should have pulled two fiber cables from 215 and Seaman

Avenue to 620 Islam; however TWC only pulled one cable.b. Each Cable should have had a permanent speed of one gig in one direction, either up or down.c. Therefore we are missing or what we need so all the traffic from all our users can only go up or down at the same

time. This is not workable. We are missing a dedicated up channel down channel, because TWC omitted 12 strands.

18. Inadequate Media Dependent Adaptor. network-to-network interface (NNI) - back panelThis is the device that attaches the clients network device to the fiber network. TWC pulled only one wire, so the networkattachment can only have one wire, whereas two are required. one, not two way communications. (GE not GT)

19. Copper User interface not Fiber-Optic user-to-network interface (UNI) - front panelThe interface is Copper based Ethernet 10 /100, while TWC promised Fiber Optic Ethernet Level 3 Interface was required

20. RJ 45 Cat 5: user-to-network interface (UNI) - front panelThese ports are only capable of supporting 10 / 100 Meg bi-directional data rate (cat 5 - full duplex). These ports actually onlysupport 10 meg commit rate, while we are being provisioned with 100 meg commit rate (not 1,000 Meg cat 6 or optical likeSonnet), the commitment rate should only be set to 10 Meg, not 100, therefore there is only 10% of the required throughoutcapacity allocated. However there are 25 to 30 IP addresses per port per Service Order Agreement; therefore there is only1/25th to 1/30th of 10% of required capacity of the edge-device. (OM 1200 ESM).

These accounts are aggregated, even though all the IP addresses (account) are colliding into a single port per service orderagreement, because TWC gave AWC an inadequate edge-device instead of edge router. TWC does not permit AWC to re-

aggregate the individual IP addresses into a single circuit or account, and therefore there are excessive collisions into thefront panel port and we have no 100 meg point of presence only up to 3.4 half duplex per individual IP.

TWC supplied Equitable Life with a router, will not supply AWC such a router. The proper provisioning should have been 2100 Meg non-aggregated IP addresses over 1 gig cat 6 ports or optical Sonnet.

21. Half duplex Media Dependent Device selected in lowest quality, only supports half duplex (GE not GT)

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

14/201





Page: 14 of 201

22. Decision not to allow AWC to inspect the settings of the client-network edge-device: on the OM 1200 ESM on the near sideof the network. Nortel recommends client access to the device manager for client verification of the SLA matrix, in addition toinspecting service parameters and conditions using RMON and STMPV3. TWC employed two wire frauds on the networkwith the first wire frauds hosted out of VA when AWC should have, according to Nortel, TWCs network vendor, viewed (notmodify) the settings in the OM 1200 and run test routines (continuity tool) RMON and STMPV3 (on near-side of the network)which would certify the SLA matrix guarantees.

23. Discriminatory, inadequate, deceptive device network settings and services associated with SLAa. Near-sideb. Far-sidec. In-path between the near and far side of the networkd. There are no clear service demarcations between the near-side, far-side, and in-path aspects of the network which is

how they are implementing the wire and service fraud.

24. Decision not to allow AWC client-management of the near-side network edge-device, which is clients ability to self -managethe settings and event alarms and traps of Operta Metro 1200 Edge System Modulea. Mapped typed services / transparent domain provisioningb. Collected statistics, including billing supportc. Programmatically changed QoS (dynamic band-width management control 8011.Q), or priority within our service space

25. General problems concerning the Install, configuration and provisioning in 620 Isham Edge-DeviceAll services must be non-aggregated; they delivered both service orders aggregated. All services must be non-aggregatedto support 100 megabit point of presence for each SLA we signed. Also there is no way to re-aggregated them without a re-aggregation device such as Nortel recommended, therefore we have separate IP addresses which have only up to 3.4 meghalf-duplex which cant even support our slowest service offerings nor SIP 2.0, State of Art VOIP, for distribution of audio andmultimedia over internet and intranet and also used for enhanced security applications.

26. TWC also employed the following antitrust strategies to degrade service quality and network-traffic throughput efficiencycoming in and out of the 620 Isham Street AWC facility:a. Manage security applications, based on standards compliant extensions

b. Support 8011.Q (vLAN) Virtual LAN provisioning and managementc. Support 8011.1x circuit securityd. Support 8011.1i packet securitye. Support CBC DES and HMAC securityf. Disallow multiple-standards compliance

27. Specific significant problems associated with Install, configuration and provisioning resulting in among other TWC antitruststrategies further degrading service quality and network-traffic throughput efficiency coming in an out of the 620 Isham StreetAWC facility through:a. TWC employed a very in-efficient transmission design; it is extremely low performance capabilities. TWC configured the

smallest possible size of user transmission data packets (most inefficient possible circuit), which can be configured inOptical Ethernet Network Device. TWC is using only an eight character user-data transmission-packet, there is moreoverhead than data being transmitted.

b. Service provisioning has an known commitment rate; extremely low priority, burst rate and bust durationc. Excessive port traffic-congestion and contentiond. Excessive dropped octets or packets (due to C above)e. Excessive security exposure

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

15/201





Page: 15 of 201

28. Other significant problems associated with Install, configuration and provisioning:Result in other TWC antitrust strategies which further degrade service quality and network-traffic throughput efficiencycoming in an out of the 620 Isham Street AWC facility through:

a. No client service termination equipment at client tenant-location at 60 Hudson for either service

b. No clearly defined service demarcation at between:

1. TW Telecom property sheet for June 23rd

Service Order Form (and possible infrastructure)

2. AOL Network Traces identify AOL infrastructure

3. Road Runner Both Wire Frauds source code indicates, Network Traces, and AWC Attachment

4. third party providers Level 3.com

5. Time Warner Cable the group directly competing in our market spaces, (Bus Services sharing info)

6. TWC Business Services the unit who approached us7. Road Runner Soho same people d/b/a with Equitable Life Assurance Co. of U.S., same time

8. Time Warner Network in Manhattan and Time Warner Data Center in Queens

9. Time Warner Data Center in Queens and VA, Rochester NY, and national internet traffic

10. Metro Ethernet Optical Ethernet Layer II and tier I Internet service provider

c. No Transparent Domain Continuity Test Attempted to substitute Nortel Recommendation for SLA verification not

using CommPortal Internet, Metro Ethernet (wire) Fraud Artifice

d. No client QOS setting specified or documented by TWC, instead TWC is employing CommPortal Internet, Metro

Ethernet (wire) Fraud Artifice

e. Unspecified Mapping from TxQ to Client 8011.q setting; unspecified serv.dif. point through TxQ mapping,

f. No RMON Stats specified by TWC as Nortel recommends which sets up the opportunity for a wire fraud, scam, and

ComPortal wire fraud artifice.

g. No STMP v3 Stats specified by TWC as Nortel recommends which sets up the opportunity for a wire fraud, scam, and

ComPortal wire fraud artifice.

h. TWC is prohibiting AWC from configuring problem event alarms that contact us when there is on the raising or fallingedge of any condition which resolves to an integer value this is the NORTEL device vendors recommended way

i. No Transparent Domain Index Number specified - this is a problem: TWC is hiding: Network to Network Interface

exclusive encapsulation for 100% customer separation of traffic

j. No Multicast Address Specified - this is a problem: TWC is hiding: Network to Network Interface exclusive

encapsulation for 100% customer separation of traffic

k. No entries in Forwarding Database specified - this is a problem: Network to Network Interface is hiding: Network to

Network Interface exclusive encapsulation for 100% customer separation of traffic

l. No emergency response plan - specified - this is a problem: Network to Network Interface is hiding: Network to

Network Interface exclusive encapsulation for 100% customer separation of trafficm. No backup cut-over capacity specified - this is a problem: TWC is hiding: Network to Network Interface exclusive

encapsulation for 100% customer separation of traffic

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

16/201





Page: 16 of 201

Chapter 4: TWC BAIT & SWITCH OPERATIONS SUMMARY

TWC engaged in the following Bait & Switch operations:.

1. From Carrier Grade (SONNET) Open Systems Telecommunications Standard which we require to be able to inter connect,or interoperate between other carriers, networks, or different parts or segments of our network, or external networks, andequipment manufactures To proprietary Nortel Standard, (Metro Ethernet), which therefore has significantly diminished value.Further TWC delivers only a consumer grade interconnection to AWC (Optical Ethernet Level One), making this for all practicalpurposes unfit for our market entry requirements.

2. From Highest Quality Service Level Guarantees (were promised detailed SLA matrix on multiple occasions) involving

highest performance like the amount of time it takes to have a signal return from the far end of a network (end to end return timeunder 50 milliseconds); this is the speed required for critical communication requirements), with 100% accessibility of service,security, elite service and support To Lowest Quality, no honest Service, with no adequate security, un-reliable, significantlydiminished, inconsistent throughput and response times etc., making this for all practical purposes unfit for our market-entryrequirements.

3. From high-quality TWC network components used to provide service, like segments, elements, and the allocation ofresources available To lowest-quality network components implemented into the circuit design (Design Record Layout) withdiscriminatory access to network resources, making this for all practical purposes unfit for our market-entry requirements.

4. From State-of-the-art fiber optic network, Dual Self Healing Sonnet Rings - To lowest quality fiber feeds terminating withcopper-wire and copper-cables RJ-45 Cat 5 connectors (front panel: 10/100). This technology is as worthless as a $30 LinkSysrouter, for all practical purposes; making this for all practical purposes, unfit for our market entry requirements.

5. From 99.999% network availability, delivered to our premises and 99.999% available for each port - Quoting GovernmentGuarantee (see March 25

thforgery of Client-Copy of Attachment A - Section 4) - To significantly diminished network availability,

in conjunction with, what appears to be intentionally-discriminatory scheduled daily outages, apparently scheduled: routinely with

one hour daily downtime episodes between 6:00 and 7:00am, making this for all practical purposes, unfit for our market entryrequirements.

6. From carrier-gradededicated-leased-line interconnecting 620 Isham with 60 Hudson - To a completely different service(ICP internet content provider), fraudulently sating that AWC ordered ENET (see August 24

thCover Letter), making this for all

practical purposes unfit for our market entry requirements as we are being denied access to 60 Hudson and all its benefits(Service Swap).

7. From a carrier-grade transport, Level 3 Optical Ethernet Transport, which is the layer or level used to communicateefficiently between telecommunications-common carriers - To a consumer-grade Optical Ethernet Layer 1 Transport (OLE1).This is the communications level used for consumer grade services which deliver programming to household consumers, makingthis for all practical purposes unfit for our market entry requirements.

8. From the high-priority Tier 3 ISP (internet access provider) which is required to feed internet wholesalers (Tier 3 InternetAccess) - To level3.com which is a Tier-1 Internet Service Provider (third-party, Tier 1 ISP re-aggregation service),discriminatorily implemented with the lowest priority (only up to 3.4 Meg/sec before excessive port traffic contention, only half-duplex). This low quality internet service is what Road Runner is providing to low-end, household consumers, nottelecommunications service providers, making this for all practical purposes unfit for our market entry requirements. Note: thisservice was to be an optional free service provisioned on the dedicated transport to/from 60 Hudson.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

17/201





Page: 17 of 201

Chapter 5: TWC BAIT & SWITCH OPERATIONS BREAKDOWN

Time Warner Cable gross misbehavior and gross misrepresentations involved nine major Bait & Switch operations (Swaps).

1. Location Swap (Z Location- the far end of the circuit)- From 60 Hudson to Wood Side Queens

a. First moved to Hub B, 61st

street, Manhattanb. Then moved to 60 Hudsonc. Then said there was no Z Location, said service terminates in an internet cloud, the Z location is a moot pointd. Finally moved to Hub C, Wood Side Queens

2. Product Swap From 2 - 100 meg dedicated lease line connecting60 Hudson

To 45 x 3.4 meg (max) non-aggregated consumer-grade Road RunnerAccounts (Internet ServiceProvider not interconnectivity)

a. Started as a Carrier-Grade Dedicated leased-line connecting tenancy locations at 60 Hudson Street and 620 Isham, atFebruary signing

b. Then became the same Dedicated leased line interconnect, but with free Tier 3 internet service optional, two days aftersigning. Thereby enabling AWC to pull Internet out of 60 Hudson through one of many cross connects, or any otherservice AWC wished to bring out of 60 Hudson to the 620 Isham street transmission facility / private co-location. Theother services do not have to support an internet protocol.

c. Then upgraded to $9K monthly with a second service order, at up to 15 sites in New York City, interconnecting to 60Hudson, providing 200 meg (shared across all the sites). However the second order was only to be activated after AWCrequired and requested the second 100 meg. Both parties also agreed with a third order, for $6K monthly for an OC12,(622.05 meg), again first 100 meg out of 60 Hudson was to be sharable among the 14 additional sites along with the first200 meg as describe above.

d. Then became ENET (Road Runner in hiding.e. Then by August 31

st(see cover letter) TWC incredulously misrepresents that the service contract signed on Feb 26

thby

AWC and signed on March 11th

by TWC, was always ENET (Road Runner in hiding), with no mention of 60 Hudson,also no mention of any additional sites, or the third order, much less that the second 100 meg was to be activate only

after 100 meg out of 60 Hudson had reached capacity.

3. Bandwidth Swap from carrier grade 100 meg, To 3.4 meg low priority, low end consumer gradeFrom two sets of 100 meg full duplex non aggregated high priority dedicated leased lines interconnecting 60 Hudson andother AWC sites activated - To 2 sets of up 3.4 meg half duplex shared accounts or 45 IP addresses being forced into 2 RJ45 cat 5 copper 10 /100 ports :

a. 30 accounts - ENET coming out of an internet cloud (This is Metro Ethernet)b. 25 accounts ELINE internet protocol totally unusable connection to 60 Hudson, because the 60 Hudson

interconnect must be independent of the internet thereby enabling AWC to carry any telecommunications productswhether they support internet protocol or not. (also internet protocol will be inferior to the level 3 Sonnet transportlayer promised.) (This is Metro Ethernet)

c. no mention of OC12 (622.05 meg)

4. Price Swaps, among other problems, TWC is denying AWC access to ENET service at 60 Hudson and 620 Isham, with orwithout the Internet hand-off as promised, thus TWC is effectively charging $7,750 monthly for service which was free,(because we were to have ability to support non ENET service offering additionally, as we stated above.) By TWCattempting to remove 60 Hudson Street interconnectivity as the June ENET Order Form requires, TWC is only enablingAWC to receive tier I internet connectivity, thus requiring AWC to order separate line to 60 Hudson. This effectively swaps afree internet connection service option on the dedicated leased line to 60 Hudson, originally offered to aid our market entry,into a Road Runner only service at a $270 per month for each 30 low end consumer grade road runner accounts,discriminatorily provisioned, when finally actually provisioned, (note: tenancy location at 60 Hudson is not provisioned asrequired in the June Orders.)

As TWC had access to many of our internal top secret documents, we are confident that TWC fully understood and planedservice knowing that AWC cant support more that 60 users at the same time, best case, however more like 30 users at atime most reasonable case, (with out an un acceptable degrading of response time) and only for the lowest end AWCconsumer offering which AWC planned to charge under $10 for this class of service.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

18/201





Page: 18 of 201

5. Document Swap (3) variations of what we signedon February 26th

2004, 2 forgeries, each with a specific objective

a. E-mailed non forged copy sometime around February time period this version is where AWC identified 38 problems (dealbreakers) with the February paperwork. These 38 points became the 38 points of mutually accepted contention betweenAWC and TWC, and from which AWC negotiated aggressively towards resolution during the first 3 weeks of March 2004

b. Fax and mailed March 25 legal package containing cover letter and forged document set. Also hand delivered a printout atmeeting on March 26

th(Minus Attachment D: which references the ENET the Road Runner service swapped in when

TWC swapped out the dedicated leased line to 60 Hudson as we are contesting. The first official inclusion of AttachmentD is in the August 31

stforgery item c below, however we did receive a copy of Attachment D by e-mail, and based on this

e-mailed copy of Attachment D, we state that section F of Attachment D was dropped out without notice)

1. Terms and conditions documenta. TWC changed duration term from 3 year (Feb 26

thorder) or 5 years (June 23

rdorder) to 30 days

b. TWC removed prohibition to resell by dropped section 2a

2. Attachment A: General Description of Services TWC forged Section 4, Gigabit Ethernet section and section 5, MetroEthernet services, ENET, ELINE as looking like Sonnet or Gigabit Ethernet and removed Gigabit Ethernet headingthus removing Gigabit Ethernet as a service option.

3. Attachment D: TWC forged this Attachment by removed prohibition to resell ENET (Road Runner in Hiding) bydropping or removing section F, by August 31

stofficially, however we saw in the March 26

thprintout hand delivered un

officially that section F which appeared in the e-mail copy section a above (February time period) was missing byMarch 26

thhowever was not formally included until August 31

st.

4. Air Web Communications Attachment not included. This document which was to be TWCs response to the 38 pointof mutually contested problems. Point 6 of 10 points in the AWC attachments admits the Road Runner service ishidden in the ENET offerings because TWC states AWC right to re-brand Road Runner. This became a major battleground issue, and was one of the blunders of TWC which started to expose TWC antitrust policies against AWC.

5. Added Marketing copy photocopies of various offerings.

6. Mailed August 31st

Final Forgery. This forgery was contained a full legal document package including Cover Letter,From the August 31

stcover letter alone AWC identified 31 points which prove or support our case, See Appendix I,

along with other documents like design layout record, which like almost all TWC documentation supports our case.a. Terms and conditions document

initial term still forged through the inclusion of the end date of the initial term inserted, August 31 2003, beingabout 8 months prior to AWC signing February 26

th, however TWC secretly (after the fact) makes the start

of the contract March 11th

2004. prohibition to resell still removed as in the March 26

thforgery faxed and mailed to 620 Isham

b. Attachment A: back to the same state as the e-mailed copy delivered in February

re-worked Gigabit Ethernet Metro Ethernet services Sections 4 and 5: ENET, ELINE

c. Finally formally included Attachment D - TWC still removed prohibition to resell by dropping section Fd. Air Web Communications Attachment not includede. Added layout design record and other misc. documents.

7. February 10th

2005 copy, a copy of our paperwork on file, the appeared the same (language) as copy from March25

th; however we obtained another copy of the March 25

th2004 in person, in front of witnesses, from the files of Durso at

the meeting. Hickey his boss, made copies against the advise of the TWC legal counsel

6. Technology SwapsFrom Fiber Optic Dual SonnetSelf Healing Sonnet Rings to Optical Ethernet Layer 1 -Copper RJ 45 cat 5 10/ 100 half duplexports, discriminatorilyhalf provisioned.

7. Circuit Design and implementation Swap; The Design and implementation is so different from what TWC represented withrespect to the design and implementation, that this is in our judgment actually Service (Wire) fraud. Both the design andimplementation which should have been simply and exclusively encapsulating 60 Hudson and 620 Isham, (or the other 14 AWCsites in the future) is constantly changing on an inter-state internet level. Changed at least 4 times since June 30, 2004 withoutclient consent as required by terms and conditions document. And based on this we believe that perhaps the use of the internet

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

19/201





Page: 19 of 201

e-mail (to AWC hotmail, and yahoo accounts) and the telephone which were used in conjunction with the forgeries, and 2 wirefraud artifices also are a form of Fraud by wire. (although not as obviously egregious)

8.Term of Service Contract Swap - 5 years back to back was converted to 30 by inserting enddate of the initialterm.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

20/201





Page: 20 of 201

Chapter 6: Restructure Transactions - EliminateAnti-Competitive Effects

1. TWC to provision 60 Hudson dedicated leased line to 620 Isham (and other 14 sites) with 3 orders as stated herein aspromised, as per specification requirements as a telecommunications VAR carrier re-selling enhanced internet access,as well as pursuant to the June 23

rdService Order Agreements.

2. Deliver on June service order agreements pursuant to terms and conditions incorporation 38 points of contention.

3. AWC must agree or formally authorize the Service Date, Provisioning Date and Due Date.

4. TWC must deliver on promised AWC roof rights, on Hub B, (61st

street) to provide laser backup interconnect, with hot

standby support, in the event the TWC Fiber lines fail which interconnect 61st

street and 620 Isham.

5. TWC must request that AWC give Notice to Authorize Change in Service Provisioning Parameters, in the form ofchange consent.

6. TWC must permit AWC to co-manage both AWC near-end and far-end network edge devices, 60 Hudson and 620Isham, as well as placing server at any data center where ISP hand off occurs. (clearly defined service demarcations)

7. All TWC Edge Devices of a quality and provisioned as carrier grade.

8. TWC must enable AWC to implement the following:a. state of the art security: authenticity and privacy protocolsb. dependable, reliable environment which can be verified and validated through internal AWC or external audits.c. exclusive use of IPs (or access to IPs) providing true encapsulated connectivity. (if using Nortel Ethernet must

encapsulate NNI, if using Sonnet by other means)

9. Circuit Design Layout Record which is TWCs technical circuit design master form which must exactly match the JuneService Order Forms (TW Telecom appears to be directly involved with the Order Form) and must incorporate ourrequirements, must incorporate 38 points negotiated in March over phone and brought out of the AWC tenant locationon the 9

thfloor at the 60 Hudson.

10. Ethernet Internet or Internet Connectivity must be interconnected with a Level 3 transport circuit accessing a Tier 3Internet Service Provider interface, support per use billing, client managed QoS bandwidth control, and state of artsecurity over superior TWC network assets and superior to the Cogent Communications offer delivered to AWC onFebruary 26, 2004.

11. Circuit up time performance must be guaranteed 99.999% network availability and 99.99% port availability (See Section4, Attachment A, March 25

thForged official client copy)

12. TWC must deliver on all three service orders as promised

13. TWC must deliver on promise to provide up to 15 locations point-to-point lines connection to 60 Hudson

14. AWC must receive substantive, timely accurate documentation and specificity a verifiable Service Level Agreement orSLA matrix, and an escalation policy in accordance with generally accepted carrier quality practices, standards and

guidelines.

15. Need a proper foundation and prove legal enforceability to attach and legally bind AWC to the February April 2004Terms and Conditions, ATTACHMENT A, B, C, D. Especially Attachment D which is exclusively dealing with ENET(Road Runner in hiding).

16. June 23rd, 2004 AWC Attachment needs to be modified and legally included.

17. TWC must roll back the billing, compensation or service credit to make us whole.

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

21/201





Page: 21 of 201

Chapter 7: Air Web Time Warner Agreement Summary

Cataldi & Associates, Inc (C&A), the parent company of AWC, is a legally adjoined party in the Air Web / TWC dispute; C&Aprovided $12,000 in June 2004. C&A, thus performed on the contract in good faith; with the promise that TWC would act ingood faith by:

1. providing 3 separate service order commitments2. for 5 to 10 years3. with 822.05 meg4. at $15,000 to up to 15 sites5. over SONNET dedicated lease line circuits6. as per requirements

7. in addition to incorporating 38 points of Mutually Acknowledged Contention, into new terms and conditions document asnegotiated during March 2004.

In March TWC legally represented, through its March 25th

forgery of Official Client Copies of execution documents (faxed andmailed), we were promised:

1. Top priority, non-aggregated services2. Optical Gigabit Ethernet Private Line grade service3. With Superior Authentication and Privacy Protocols4. With Bit Error Rate (BER) < 1X 1012 for Gigabit Ethernet5. Port Availability of Availability of 99.99%6. Network Availability of 99.999%

One month after, then 2.5 months after we signed the February contract TWC is still representing the functionality, with the intentof misrepresenting what TWC technology was being employed to service AWC in the Durso-May 7

th2004 e-mail sent to AWC.

TWCs initial service offer was made to AWC last February. This offer was made in response to a verbal Request For Proposalissued by TELx of 60 Hudson, on behalf of AWC, to secure a long term contract providing a dedicated leased line (or point topoint or 2 point service) linking the tenant locations at 60 Hudson Street and 620 Isham, pursuant to our business and technicalrequirements as a Enhanced or Value added Communications Carrier for New York City, for a minimum of 5 years. AWC actedon TWCs response to a Request for Proposal issued by TELx co-location facility, under a simple straightforward contract, withspecific Service Level verifiable grade and performance guarantees.

The dedicated leased line service was ordered on two successive occasions, first on February 26th

then again on June 23rd

asper TWCs instructions. AWC unilaterally performed on the contract in good faith with a prepayment of $12,000 also in June2004, after AWC principals believed that we had worked out our areas of mutually acknowledged contention during the first 3weeks of March 2004.

Over the spring and Summer TWC offers to AWC became more attractive and in hind sight probably not credible.1. starting Sonnet Grade and Standard2. then optional free carrier grade client managed internet access3. then expanded capacity up to 822.05 meg available at a guaranteed rate $16,000 monthly4. finally expanding the 60 Hudson Street connectivity at up to 14 other AWC transmission hubs within New York City, (155

meg to secondary sites)5. three times price value of others pursuant to revenue sharing offer we assume, (however we never acted on or followed up

with any additional questions as to why TWC would support AWC if AWC market entry was detrimental to AWC asindicated in the March 26

thmeeting at 120 East 23

rdstreet, NYC

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

22/201

Cataldi & Associates Inc.NYC, Milwaukee

Cataldi & Associates Vs. Time Warner

January 26, 2005 -- Draft Version -- DOJ Brief 211.d NYC

Page: 22 of 201AirWeb

Communications

Chapter 8: Key Time frames

1. Before February26thAWC resource to be managed outour tenancy location at TelexTWC promised that AWC would be able to manage 822.05 Meg per second of 60 Hudson Street connectivity across the 15 sitesin New York City starting with our 620 Isham Street Facility. TWC offered to provide assistance over the next ten years, as AWCbuilt up service offerings and distribution networks feeding out of one of the main co-location facilities in the world.

Assistance was to start with a 12 mile dedicated leased line to AW to 620 Isham Street. AWC intended to utilize the dedicatedleased line for the purposes of distributing value-added services available out of 60 Hudson to 620 Isham Street. Air Web aftervalue-adding and enhancing the service feeds, intends to broadcast re-branded and original branded services over AWCs new

Optical / Radio Neighborhood Web.

Initial ContactThe initial contact made by TWC to AWC to AWC, was over the telephone, in response to a verbal request for proposal, on thepart of the Telex group, as per our requirement for tenancy was carrier class affordable connectivity from 60 Hudson were wecould pickup up cogent feeds and the feeds of other tenants of Telex.

2. First Offer February2004 SigningOn February 26

th2004, TWC and AWC / C&A entered into a simple straight forward dedicated leased line contract. This contract

was to provide premium network elements to provide an encapsulated circuit between AWC tenant location on the 9th

floor at 60Hudson and AWC tenant location on the 3rd floor at 620 Isham Street, exactly as per the telephone based discussions, with boththe northern and midtown Time Warner Representatives.

The actual offer to sign paperwork on February 26th

2004 was a complete surprise offer. TWC verbally walked us throughstraightforward terms for a dedicated leased line from the TELx facility to 620 Isham. We signed contract with TWCrepresentative, who tagged along with our formal tenant welcome tour at the TELx Facility by senior TELx Staff, which wasattended by Cogent Communications Senior East Cost Wholesale manager John Keegan, who arranged for our tenancy atTELx.

First Offer Straight forward,and SimpleThe contract was to provide dedicated leased line (one line per order) to encapsulate 620 Isham and the Co-location Facility onthe 9

thfloor of 60 Hudson initially. The Service contract, operations, emergency escalation process and service was to be simple,

straight forward, and verifiable. TWC guaranteed that the dedicated leased lines service would be Client managed from thefollowing aspects:

a. 100 Meg full duplex, dedicated leased lineb. Encapsulated servicec. Carrier grade network edge devices both endsd. Carried over SONNET technologye. Was to be approx 12 milesf. Connecting 620 Isham with 60 Hudson streetg. For $8,000 monthlyh. Highest Securityi. Client managed or co-managed network edge devices j. Client Controlled QOS which manage bandwidth control

k. Client manages dynamic virtual circuit within our encapsulated dedicated circuitl. Support 100% 2.0 SIP VOIP compliant and 802.11.1im. Offered optional free internet - by February 28

th

n. March 25th First Forgery indicated that ELINE /ENET were 99.999% network available, and 99.99% port available

3. February26th andMarch 11th - during which TWC secretly did not signed the Feb contract until 2 weeks later.a. February 26

th2004, Service Order Agreements signature may have been transferred

b. TWC imposes document language which is discriminatory and possibly illegal, document is well suited to enable orprotect TWC during AWC foreclosure activities.

c. TWC moves AWC account into pre-existing Good Shepherd School TWC account, without our prior knowledge.(AWC620 facility is located on parish property)

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

23/201





Communications

d. First TWC represented to AWC over the phone that the contract was for dedicated two point leased line (point to pointline) out of 60 Hudson, with free ENET optional, Out of 61 Street and other key bait and switch issues.

e. Then TWC represented to AWC over the phone, that the contract was for ENET $8,000 monthly, Out of 61 Street alongwith swapped issues.

f. TWC misrepresented what was being Sold, out of where1. AWC ordered ENET or internet, in February 2004 when in fact AWC ordered a dedicated leased line out of 60

Hudson, linking in 620 Isham Street.2. Z location (other side of the wire) on the February service order form indicates that the service is coming out of 61

st

Street.

4. March 11th and March 25th

During which we though that we were both acting in good faith to resolve The 38 Major Problems identified in the e-mailed

representation of the February 26th contract

March 25th

, 2004 Forgery copy of execution documents sent in full package This copy was faxed and mailed (by massager),used to trick AWC into signing new Order Form in June, however backfires on TWC, when TWC uses actual Feb order form, notthe forgery of the Feb Service Order Form. Note: different from e-mailed copy used by AWC and TWC to negotiate 38 pointsduring first 3 weeks of March 2004.

5. March 26thand June23rd

during which TWC was attempting to get AW to sign new documents in order to shed legal responsibilities of earlier forgeries.The new documents would supersede; previous documents burdened with a list of forgeries, fraud and other felonies; lied abouteverything relating to digging up the street, pulling fiber etc.

6. June23rd toJune29th

during which TWC completely misrepresents virtually everything relating to what we would be receiving, and the terms andconditions under which we would receive these services & support. (Between July 2004 to current TWC implemented two wirefraud schemes)

7. March 15- June30th

During which period TWC designs, tests and activates circuit design without notice or authorization, with no legal basis. We arevery concerned with original design and its possible use. We never consented to any dates, authorized any key installationevents, like street cut, fiber pull. Did not request any Activation Date.

AWC is not legally obligated to pay for any service as Time Warner did not get approval on any of these Dates:a. Activation (same as service date)b. Effective we were discriminated against when compared to Equitable Life, see March 25th Fax)c. End Term this was slipped in both the March and August forgeries)d. Provisioning- this dates were talked about a lot, but do not appear to have any real significancee. Test & Turn-up this dates were talked about a lot, but do not appear to have any real significancef. Street-Cut Uptown Facility One Landlord: Local Parish approved not AWCg. Fiber-Pull Uptown Facility One Landlord: Local Parish approved not AWCh. Installation this is a total deception, not the ELINE service was activate on June 24

thwithout notice or consent release

i. Desired (this is used to link to the right for TWC to select a due Date) j. Due (this is the hidden real date)

(By June 23rd

2004, AWC signed two Service Orders which supersede the February 26th

2004 contracts. These Service Ordersrestored AWC into our tenancy locations at the TELx facility at 60 Hudson pursuant to the technical specifications expressed inMarch 25

thforgery)

8/8/2019 DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

24/201





Communications

a. We believe that Execution documents are not legally enforceable because official AWCs client copies (March 25th 2004was forged after we signed them, and before TWC delivered them to us, using FAX and registered mail (private carrier): February 26

thService Order Form

February 26th Terms and Conditions Document, Page 1 (section 2a dropped) and page 3 was modified by addingan end date for the initial term, forcing contract to 30 day term with ability for TWC to change terms and conditionsand prices at will.

February 26th

Attachments A-C sent. Terms and Conditions Document Page 1 and 3 modified, Attachment A,sections 4 and 5 modified.

DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d

Documents

Transcript of DOJ_Brief--03-24-2005 1d