PYRAMIDS FALL. While I enjoyed reading the "Pyramid Schemes" article in your May 1, 1998 issue, as the lead prosecutor in the Federal Trade Commission's action against FutureNet I feel a clarification is in order. While the FTC's complaint focused on FutureNet's Internet access program, certain concerns attach to any program which focuses on recruitment since one of the hallmarks of a pyramid is the lack of any relationship between the compensation paid to a distributor for recruiting and the sale of any product. (Webster v. Omnitrition International Inc., 79 F. 3d 776, 781 [9th Cir. 1996]) Between January 1, 1998, when FutureNet's Future Electric Networks (FEN) program began, and February 23, 1998, when the FTC filed its complain, FEN signed up almost 26,000 distributorships. Throughout this period, as your article notes, FEN had neither the ability nor the authority to provide electrical power to consumers. Therefore, all of FEN's pre-February 23, 1998 revenue came exclusively from recruitment through the sale of distributorships since FEN had no product to sell. Similarly, all compensation paid by FEN to its distributors prior to February 23 related entirely to the recruiting of new distributors and not to the sale of electrical power.