**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
|                                  |    |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
|                                  |    |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | )  | File No. EB-07-TC-4006       |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Horizon Telecom, Inc.            | )  | NAL/Acct. No. 200832170013   |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Apparent Liability for           | )  | FRN: 0009704925              |
| Forfeiture                       |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE**

**Adopted: February 29, 2008 Released: February 29, 2008**

By the Commission:

####  {#section .unnumbered}

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this *Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture* ("*NAL*"),[^1]
    we find that Horizon Telecom, Inc. ("Horizon" or "Company")
    apparently willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended[^2] ("Communications
    Act" or "Act"), and sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the
    Commission's rules.[^3] As discussed in more detail herein, Horizon
    has apparently willfully or repeatedly failed to respond on a timely
    basis to twenty-one (21) informal complaints served on it by the
    Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB"). In addition, it
    apparently changed the preferred carriers of one hundred
    twenty-five (125) consumers without proper authorization, a practice
    commonly known as "slamming."[^4] Based upon our review of the facts
    and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we propose
    a monetary forfeiture of \$5,084,000 against Horizon for the
    apparent violations described herein.

2.  Horizon's apparent violations are discussed individually in detail
    below. However, we provide a brief background to the investigation.
    Horizon is a Las Vegas-based company that provides long distance
    calling services. The Commission has been monitoring Horizon's
    activities due to the quantity and nature of informal complaints
    received by CGB and state public utility commissions and Attorneys
    General offices. The Enforcement Bureau ("EB") sent Horizon a Letter
    of Inquiry ("LOI") on June 28, 2007, directing the company to answer
    a number of inquiries regarding its business practices and
    compliance with various Commission rules. [^5] Horizon provided a
    partial response on July 27, 2007 ("response") [^6] and supplemented
    its response on September 19, 2007 ("supplemental response").[^7]

# Discussion

## Failure to Respond to Commission Directive

### Background

3.  CGB's informal complaint process provides an avenue for consumers to
    have their complaints and inquiries addressed through informal
    mediation and resolution by CGB with the carrier. CGB addresses
    informal complaints against carriers by serving the complaint on the
    carrier and requiring from the carrier within thirty days a written
    response discussing the satisfaction of the complaint or the
    carrier's refusal or inability to satisfy the complaint.
    Specifically, pursuant to section 1.717:

    The Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate
    carrier for investigation. The carrier will, within such time as may
    be prescribed, advise the Commission in writing, with a copy to the
    complainant, of its satisfaction of the complaint or its refusal or
    inability to do so. Where there are clear indications from the
    carrier's report or from other communications with the parties that
    the complaint has been satisfied the Commission may in its
    discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to be closed, without
    response to the complainant. In all other cases, the Commission will
    contact the complainant regarding its review and disposition of the
    matters raised. If the complainant is not satisfied by the carrier's
    response and the Commission's disposition, it may file a formal
    complaint in accordance with §1.721 of this part.[^8]

4.  Pursuant to this process, CGB served on Horizon twenty-one (21)
    informal complaints.[^9] Further, the Commission on March 2, 2007,
    reminded carriers of the importance of responding to informal
    complaints, and the seriousness of the penalties for failure to do
    so.[^10] Horizon has failed to respond in a timely manner to these
    twenty-one informal complaints. To date, Horizon has not responded
    to twelve of the complaints,[^11]and responded at least two months
    late to the remaining nine complaints.[^12]

### Discussion

5.  Sections 4(i), 4(j), 218, and 403 of the Act afford the Commission
    broad authority to investigate the entities it regulates.[^13]
    Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to "issue such orders, not
    inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of
    its functions," and section 4(j) states that "the Commission may
    conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the
    proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice."[^14]
    Section 218 of the Act specifically authorizes the Commission to
    "obtain from . . . carriers . . . full and complete information
    necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry
    out the objects for which it was created."[^15] Section 403 of the
    Act grants the Commission "full authority and power at any time to
    institute an inquiry, on its own motion . . . relating to the
    enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act."[^16] Finally,
    section 1.717 of our rules requires the Commission to forward
    informal complaints to the appropriate carriers and requires a
    written response from the carrier within thirty days.[^17]

6.  We find that Horizon apparently violated section 1.717 of the
    Commission's rules by failing to timely respond to the
    above-referenced twenty-one informal complaints served by CGB. The
    Commission on March 2, 2007, expressly reminded carriers of their
    regulatory obligations to respond to informal complaints in a timely
    fashion, and the seriousness of the penalties for failure to do
    so.[^18] Nevertheless, Horizon has not timely responded to the
    informal complaints referenced herein. Of the twenty-one complaints
    at issue, Horizon failed to respond to twelve. Moreover, Horizon's
    responses to the nine remaining complaints were filed not only
    beyond thirty days of service, the time frame in which Horizon was
    given to respond in all of these informal responses, but also beyond
    that March 2007 Public Notice. We conclude that Horizon apparently
    willfully or repeatedly violated a Commission rule by failing to
    timely provide a written response in response to twenty-one informal
    complaints. Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture is warranted against
    Horizon for this apparent willful or repeated violation.

## Slamming Violations

### Background

7.  Section 258 of the Act prohibits the practice of "slamming," the
    submission or execution of an unauthorized change in a subscriber's
    selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone
    toll service ("preferred carrier").[^19] Section 258 of the Act
    makes it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to "submit or
    execute a change in a subscriber\'s selection of a provider of
    telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in
    accordance with such procedures as the Commission shall
    prescribe."[^20] In December 1998, the Commission released the
    *Section 258 Order* in which it adopted rules to implement Section
    258.[^21] In the *Section 258 Order*, the Commission adopted
    aggressive rules designed to take the profit out of slamming,
    broadened the scope of the slamming rules to encompass all carriers,
    and modified its existing requirements for the authorization and
    verification of preferred carrier changes.

8.  The rules require, among other things, that a carrier receive
    individual subscriber consent before a carrier change may
    occur.[^22] Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules prescribes
    that no carrier "shall submit a change on the behalf of a subscriber
    . . . prior to obtaining: (i) Authorization from the subscriber,
    and (ii) Verification of that authorization in accordance with the
    procedures prescribed in this section."[^23] Specifically, a carrier
    must: (1) obtain the subscriber\'s written or electronically signed
    authorization in a format that meets the requirements of section
    64.1130; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free
    number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders
    electronically; or (3) utilize an independent third party to verify
    the subscriber\'s order.[^24]

9.  Of particular relevance here is section 64.1130 which details the
    requirements for the letter of agency ("LOA") form and content for
    written or electronically signed authorizations.[^25] Section
    64.1130(b) requires that the LOA "be a separate document (or an
    easily separable document) or located on a separate screen or
    webpage containing only the authorizing language described in
    paragraph (e) of \[section 64.1130\] having the sole purpose of
    authorizing a telecommunications carrier to initiate a preferred
    carrier change. The letter of agency must be signed and dated by the
    subscriber to the telephone line(s) requesting the preferred carrier
    change."[^26] The rule further mandates that the LOA "shall not be
    combined on the same document, screen, or webpage with inducements
    of any kind."[^27] The rule details the basic requirements for the
    LOA, including the size and readability of type, and certain minimum
    content requirements.[^28]

#### Discussion

10. Each of the one hundred twenty-five (125) consumers who filed
    complaints that form the basis of this NAL maintain that they did
    not authorize Horizon to change their preferred carriers, but that
    Horizon nevertheless changed their preferred carriers to
    Horizon.[^29] Horizon states that authorization was received and
    confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed.[^30] We
    find that Horizon has failed to produce a preponderance of evidence
    that the complainants authorized a carrier change.[^31] Therefore,
    we find that Horizon's actions apparently resulted in an
    unauthorized change in each complainant's telecommunications service
    provider.

11. In its response to the LOI, Horizon states that it markets through
    an "Internet marketing campaign" and telemarketing, and that it
    terminated both marketing programs prior to its receipt of the
    LOI.[^32] The Company submitted copies of its Internet LOA, and its
    telemarketing script and verification script. We have reviewed the
    LOA submitted by Horizon, and find that Horizon's LOA contains an
    inducement in apparent violation of our rules,[^33] despite
    Horizon's claim that its LOA "ensures that customers are properly
    solicited...the Letter of Authorization contains no marketing
    materials."[^34] In particular, every LOA provided by Horizon
    contains not only acceptable authorizing language and disclosures,
    but also the following inducement: "**\[a\]nd as an added BONUS, you
    will receive 2 FREE Roundtrip Airline Tickets Certificate** from
    Executive Tour and Travel!" (emphasis in original).[^35] As noted
    above, our rules specifically prohibit LOAs from being combined with
    any inducements on the same "document, screen, or webpage."[^36]
    Further, the LOA appears to lack a means or location for consumers
    to provide their electronic signature, as required by our
    rules.[^37] Accordingly, any preferred carrier change submitted by
    Horizon pursuant to the LOA it provided in response to the LOI
    apparently violates our rules on its face and thus constitutes a
    slam. We conclude that Horizon apparently willfully or repeatedly
    violated a Commission rule by submitting carrier change orders
    without proper authorization in accordance with our rules and
    section 258 of the Act of every consumer listed in Appendix I.
    Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture is warranted against Horizon for
    this apparent willful or repeated violation.

# FORFEITURE AMOUNT

12. Under section 503(b)(1) of the Act, any person who is determined by
    the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
    any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
    the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
    penalty.[^38] Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the
    conscious and deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act,
    irrespective of any intent to violate" the law.[^39] The legislative
    history to section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this
    definition of willful applies to both sections 312 and 503(b) of the
    Act,[^40] and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the
    section 503(b) context.[^41] The Commission also may assess a
    forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not
    willful.[^42] "Repeated" means that the act was committed or omitted
    more than once, or lasts more than one day.[^43] To impose such a
    forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    liability and the person against whom the notice has been issued
    must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture
    penalty should be imposed.[^44] The Commission will then issue a
    forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
    person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission
    order or rule.[^45]

13. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess
    a forfeiture of up to \$130,000 for each violation or each day of a
    continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of \$1,325,000 for a
    single act or failure to act.[^46] In determining the appropriate
    forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section
    503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including "the nature, circumstances,
    extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
    violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require."[^47]
    As provided by the Commission's rules, the Commission and its staff
    retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture, as
    permitted by statute.[^48]

14. Horizon will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and
    arguments in response to this NAL to show that no forfeiture should
    be imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed.[^49]

## Proposed Forfeiture for Horizon's Failures to Respond

15. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's
    *Forfeiture Policy Statement* establish a base forfeiture amount of
    and \$4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission
    communication.[^50] Horizon's failure to timely respond to the
    twenty-one (21) informal complaints served by CGB warrants the base
    forfeiture amount of \$4,000 for each apparent violation, for a
    proposed forfeiture of eighty-four thousand dollar (\$84,000).

16. We also direct Horizon to respond to the remaining twelve informal
    complaints within thirty (30) days of the release of this order.
    Failure to do so may constitute an additional violation potentially
    subjecting Horizon to further penalties, including potentially
    higher monetary forfeitures, the revocation of operating authority,
    and the disqualification of any Horizon principal from the provision
    of any common carrier services without the prior consent of the
    Commission.[^51]

## Proposed Forfeiture for Horizon's Slamming Violations

17. The Commission\'s forfeiture guidelines currently establish a
    standard forfeiture amount of \$40,000 for violations of our rules
    and orders regarding unauthorized changes of preferred interexchange
    carriers.[^52] On several occasions, the Commission has sternly
    warned carriers that it would take swift and decisive enforcement
    action, including the imposition of substantial monetary
    forfeitures, against any carrier found to have engaged in
    slamming.[^53] We therefore find that Horizon is apparently liable
    for a forfeiture of \$40,000 for each of the one hundred and
    twenty-five (125) unauthorized preferred carrier changes, for a
    total forfeiture of five million dollars (\$5,000,000).

# Conclusion and Ordering Clauses

18. We have determined that Horizon Telecom, Inc. has apparently
    willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^54] and sections 1.717,
    64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission's rules.[^55] Horizon has
    apparently willfully and repeatedly failed to timely respond to
    twenty-one (21) informal complaints served on it by CGB and
    submitted changes of the preferred carriers of one hundred
    twenty-five (125) consumers without their proper authorization, for
    a total propose forfeiture of \$5,084,000 dollars.

19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), section
    1.80 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that Horizon
    Telecom. Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture in the amount of \$5,084,000 for willful or repeated
    violations of sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201
    and 258, and sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the
    Commission's rules and orders as described above.[^56]

20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
    Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
    NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Horizon Telecom, Inc. SHALL PAY the
    full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
    statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
    forfeiture. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of
    the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,
    S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau
    --Telecommunications Consumers Division, and must include the
    NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

21. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture
    in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner
    submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year
    period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally
    accepted accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable
    and objective documentation that accurately reflects the
    petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay
    must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to
    the financial documentation submitted.

22. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for
    in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) days of
    the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of
    Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act.[^57]
    Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card through the
    Commission's Revenue and Receivables Operations Group at (202)
    418-1995, or by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the
    Account Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or
    money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
    Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may
    be sent to U.S. Bank -- Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL,
    1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment\[**s**\] by wire
    transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank Federal
    Reserve Bank of New York, and account number 27000001. Requests for
    full payment under an installment plan should be sent to:  Chief
    Financial Officer \-- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
    Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.  20554.   Questions, please contact
    the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:
    <ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov>.

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified mail to Horizon
    Telecom, Inc. at its address of record.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

Appendix I

1\. IC# 07-S0277769 Matthew Scott 573-635-5808

2\. IC# 07-S0277775 CJ Conte 304-598-7037

3\. IC# 07-S0277887 Matthew Browning 660-882-9217

4\. IC# 07-S0278231 Mary Weaver 816-525-4807

5\. IC# 07-S0278566 Barbara Henning 215-799-0224

6\. IC# 07-S0279040 James Major 610-670-1067

7\. IC# 07-S001622 Manuel Sedan 724-465-2959

8\. IC# 07-S001626 Claretha Young 314-524-7212

9\. IC# 07-S001656 Rick Baldwin 816-792-8623

10\. IC# 07-S001665 Tom Hand 816-525-6783

11\. IC# 07-S001690 Courtney Szpara 262-375-0731

12\. IC# 07-S001696 Todd Shaffer 816-795-7122

13\. IC# 07-S001703 Kevin Tresenriter 816-415-8638

14\. IC# 07-S001719 Michael Poindexter 816-537-7520

15\. IC# 07-S001735 Kathleen Flanders 573-873-8071

16\. IC# 07-S0277286 Nichola McCasland 573-431-8019

17\. IC# 07-S0277702 Paula Geisler 610-326-2646

18\. IC# 07-S0277729 David Hamilton 770-233-8364

19\. IC# 07-S0277886 Brenda Morton 417-588-2689

20\. IC# 07-S028232 Bruce Webster 816-228-9596

21\. IC# 07-S0278564 Rick Gillenwater 660-442-3234

22\. IC# 07-S0278569 Gary Moege 660-429-1618

23\. IC# 07-S0278618 Debbie Ehling 816-792-2019

24\. IC# 07-S0273144 Remi Freeman 215-321-2323

25\. IC# 07-S0273206 Kim Ramirez 573-364-4624

26\. IC# 07-S0273689 Kristin Rose 816-792-9775

27\. IC# 07-S0274239 Shannon Hartman 804-639-1094

28\. IC# 07-S0274323 Christine Potter 816-478-7465

29\. IC# 07-S0274687 Brian Whitley 816-537-5308

30\. IC# 07-S0274692 Eve Wells 816-781-5723

31\. IC# 07-S0274693 Robert Snyder 816-407-9023

32\. IC# 07-S0274695 Beth Hodge 717-417-1152

33\. IC# 07-S0276099 Setsuko Meyers 636-329-8298

34\. IC# 07-S0276105 Gary Boyd 816-373-3278

35\. IC# 07-S0276110 Connie Savage 816-524-3483

36\. IC# 07-S02762222 Pamela Fritzsche 314-428-5512

37\. IC# 07-S0276777 Darlene Owens-Howard 404-696-2996

38\. IC# 07-S0277042 Bryan Cessna 816-792-8473

39\. IC# 07-S0277104 Thomas Mullen 757-479-5178

40\. IC# 07-S0277106 Ron Schach 816-792-0860

41\. IC# 07-S0277107 Ralph and Sonni Cooper 505-466-6661

42\. IC# 07-S0277109 Charles Curtis 417-624-7451

43\. IC# 07-S0277285 Michael Blechle 573-243-0767

44\. IC# 07-S0277434 Heidi and Chris Hehner 314-427-0427

45\. IC# 07-S0277528 Anthony Warner 816-229-9565

46\. IC# 07-S0277534 Craig Nichols 573-659-8223

47\. IC# 07-S0277665 Terry Roberts 814-336-3373

48\. IC# 07-S0277669 Joshua Maddux 816-524-8754

49\. IC# 07-S0277671 Gwendolyn and Jeffrey Finley 417-624-7776

50\. IC# 07-S0277705 Thomas Stegeman 573-761-4886

51\. IC# 07-S001517 Nancy Khashan 770-271-7399

52\. IC# 07-S001530 John Monroe 724-783-7540

53\. IC# 07-S001566 Timothy Potinga 412-833-5817

54\. IC# 07-S001594 Edward Boles 816-246-4691

55\. IC# 07-S001577 Jessica and Joshua Layman 417-859-0023

56\. IC# 07-S001581 Duane Peter 816-792-1498

57\. IC# 07-S001582 Rebecca Smith 816-833-3243

58\. IC# 07-S001590 Jennifer Lay 816-224-8493

59\. IC# 07-S001593 Colleen Baber 434-977-8930

60\. IC# 07-S001571 Angeline Harkins 816-836-5351

61\. IC# 07-S001596 John Granger 816-224-0079

62\. IC# 07-S001607 Douglas Merrifield 417-889-6708

63\. IC# 07-S001609 Ilona Bukhshtaber 314-863-3665

64\. IC# 07-S001615 Teressa Hill 816-478-0468

65\. IC# 07-S001617 William Jordan 314-647-6009

66\. IC# 07-S001627 Diane Logsdon 816-537-5859

67\. IC# 07-S001628 Mary Corley 573-635-9405

68\. IC# 07-S001631 Megan and John Baldridge 660-886-9454

69\. IC# 07-S001667 Robert Glauz 816-524-5596

70\. IC# 07-S001675 Marilyn Kliethermes 573-636-5334

71\. IC# 07-S001683 Gary Ford 816-781-4079

72\. IC# 07-S001699 Brad Dye 816-229-1094

73\. IC# 07-S001702 Albert Monteil 816-795-0120

74\. IC# 07-S0261996 Andrea Kartchner 570-784-4737

75\. IC# 07-S0262333 Lloyd Wrisley 804-378-2849

76\. IC# 07-S0262341 Anne Widmer 314-846-9841

77\. IC# 07-S0263454 Natasha Ewing 770-469-7294

78\. IC# 07-S0265312 Jerome Blomberg 920-892-4941

79\. IC# 07-S0278620 Gloria Lee 314-428-1999

80\. IC# 07-S0279426 James Sumner 660-827-4598

81\. IC# 07-S0279432 Chet Boisen 816-532-6284

82\. IC# 07-S0279693 Alma Wright 770-860-9413

83\. IC# 07-S0279695 Doug Schell 816-836-0019

84\. IC# 07-S0279984 Carolyn Brewer 417-358-5316

85\. IC# 07-S0280087 Lillie Monford 770-457-9041

86\. IC# 07-S0280531 Jacqueline Whiston 816-734-8877

87\. IC# 07-S0280647 Glenda Moon 770-429-1808

88\. IC# 07-S0280650 Mary Struttmann 636-928-8467

89\. IC# 07-B0275549 Jessee Biretz 717-540-0899

90\. IC# 07-W13001949 Peter Nicastro 314-890-0672

91\. IC# 07-W12994120 Edwin Borja 816-833-3722

92\. IC# 07-W12982353 Stacey Price Brown 404-362-1211

93\. IC# 07-W12937616 Nelson Bencomo 201-854-8283

94\. IC# 07-W12896682 Saralyn Dicken 816-413-8251

95\. IC# 07-I0270733 Dennis McMullen 775-626-0360

96\. IC# 07-I0270252 John Conaty 804-214-9508

97\. IC# 07-W12860834 Hanan Shaban 732-239-2006

98\. IC# 07-I0266416 Barbara Post 610-384-1712

99\. IC# 07-W12713387 Brian Emig 717-854-6325

100\. IC# 07-F0265081 Beth Moury 412-672-4694

101\. IC# 07-W12701686 Yolanda Ackerman 440-953-8531

102\. IC# 07-W12654814 Christopher Nehoda 440-237-2203

103\. IC# 07-F0261477 Gale Meidinger 717-732-3709

104\. IC# 07-W12501443 Chris Charnas 407-862-2348

105\. IC# 07-R335462 Patricia Blanco 305-828-8930

106\. IC# 07-W13012330 Michael McMillan 573-243-0511

107\. IC# 07-W12681465 Joshua Porter 614-899-2336

108\. IC# 07-B0266043 Paula Daniels 321-632-9784

109\. IC# 07-W12946489 Linda Finnessey 314-837-6839

110\. IC# 07-W12904820 Tonia Budzina 440-988-5624

111\. IC# 07-I0271243 Brenda Fisher 703-237-3610

112\. IC# 07-I0266415 Heidi Tabor 609-884-3367

113\. IC# 07-W12706455 Kathleen Marsh 269-683-3945

114\. IC# 07-W12966032 Kevin Eckhoff 816-373-7012

115\. IC# 07-W12700756 Ralph Landis 610-264-1307

116\. IC# 07-W12691072 Margaret Calafut 570-282-6229

117\. IC# 07-W12680651 Carlos Frias 732-389-3579

118\. IC# 07-W13042260 Patricia Whitacre 417-532-4626

119\. IC# 07-W12979181 Angela Klumb 920-662-1646

120\. IC# 07-W12759157 Beverly Egan 410-252-6507

121\. IC# 07-R296949 Charles Underdown 757-853-3982

122\. IC# 07-W12659334 Max Ervin 413-736-3949

123\. IC# 07-W12658145 Mickey Hutton 540-778-1186

124\. IC# 07-W12729028 Gavril Costea 770-945-5576

125\. IC# 07-W12692054 Yi-Tsuei Sheu 410-744-2346

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1). The Commission has the authority under this
    section of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended to assess a
    forfeiture against any person who has "willfully or repeatedly
    failed to comply with any of the provisions of this Act or of any
    rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under this Act
    ...."

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 258.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130.

[^4]: *See* para 7, *infra*.

[^5]: Letter from Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief,
    Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, to Cheyenne Devine, Customer Service
    Manager, Horizon Telecom, Inc. (June 28, 2007) ("LOI").

[^6]: Letter from Andrew Lustigman, The Lustigman Firm, P.C., Counsel to
    Horizon Telecom, Inc., to Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief,
    Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission (July 27, 2007) ("response").

[^7]: Letter from Andrew Lustigman, The Lustigman Firm, P.C., Counsel to
    Horizon Telecom, Inc., to Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief,
    Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission (September 19, 2007) ("supplemental
    response")

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. §1.717.

[^9]: *See* IC#s 07-S0279092 (sent to Horizon 7/6/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279182 (sent to Horizon 7/26/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279425 (sent to Horizon 7/13/07, no response
    received), 07-S001633 (sent to Horizon 6/14/07, no response
    received), 07-S0277776 (sent to Horizon 6/15/07, no response
    received), 07-S0278305 (sent to Horizon 6/19/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279037 (sent to Horizon 7/10/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279094 (sent to Horizon 7/10/07, no response
    received), 07-S001697 (sent to Horizon 7/13/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279981 (sent to Horizon 7/20/07, no response
    received), 07-S0266292 (sent to Horizon 2/21/07, no response
    received), 07-S001551 (sent to Horizon 4/11/07, no response
    received), 07-S001530 (sent to Horizon 3/9/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0267711 (sent to Horizon 3/6/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0270717 (sent to Horizon 3/30/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0270921 (sent to Horizon 3/29/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S001517 (sent to Horizon 2/2/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0263454 (sent to Horizon 2/2/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0257121 (sent to Horizon 2/8/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0262341 (sent to Horizon 1/26/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0266294 (sent to Horizon 2/21/07, response received
    6/11/07).

[^10]: Public Notice, *Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reminds
    Common Carriers of Their Obligation to Timely Respond to Informal
    Complaints*, DA 07-989 (March 2, 2007).

[^11]: *See* IC#s 07-S0279092 (sent to Horizon 7/6/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279182 (sent to Horizon 7/26/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279425 (sent to Horizon 7/13/07, no response
    received), 07-S001633 (sent to Horizon 6/14/07, no response
    received), 07-S0277776 (sent to Horizon 6/15/07, no response
    received), 07-S0278305 (sent to Horizon 6/19/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279037 (sent to Horizon 7/10/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279094 (sent to Horizon 7/10/07, no response
    received), 07-S001697 (sent to Horizon 7/13/07, no response
    received), 07-S0279981 (sent to Horizon 7/20/07, no response
    received), 07-S0266292 (sent to Horizon 2/21/07, no response
    received), 07-S001551 (sent to Horizon 4/11/07, no response
    received).

[^12]: *See* IC#s 07-S001530 (sent to Horizon 3/9/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0267711 (sent to Horizon 3/6/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0270717 (sent to Horizon 3/30/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0270921 (sent to Horizon 3/29/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S001517 (sent to Horizon 2/2/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0263454 (sent to Horizon 2/2/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0257121 (sent to Horizon 2/8/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0262341 (sent to Horizon 1/26/07, response received
    6/29/07), 07-S0266294 (sent to Horizon 2/21/07, response received
    6/11/07). We note that, although CGB has served other complaints on
    Horizon that the Company has not responded to in a timely fashion,
    we exercise our discretion not to assess a forfeiture for those
    late-filed responses because we only recently made clear our intent
    to enforce more strictly our response time frame as set forth by
    section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, and because those
    late-filed responses were not filed as far beyond the filing time
    frame as those for which we do assess a forfeiture. We caution
    Horizon and other carriers that, as we made clear in our March 2,
    2007 Public Notice, we expect timely responses to informal
    complaints, and we will take a hard look at late-filed responses in
    subsequent actions.

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j), 218, & 403.

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), (j).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. § 218.

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. § 403; s*ee also* 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), (j).

[^17]: 47 C.F.R. §1.717.

[^18]: *Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reminds Common Carriers
    of Their Obligation to Timely Respond to Informal Complaints*,
    Public Notice, DA 07-989 (March 2, 2007).

[^19]: 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 258.

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 258(a); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
    104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996); *Implementation of the Subscriber
    Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of
    Consumers' Long Distance Carriers*, CC Docket No. 94-129, Second
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC
    Rcd 1508 (1998) (*Section 258 Order), stayed in part, MCI WorldCom
    v. FCC*, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999); First Order on
    Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158 (2000); *stay lifted, MCI WorldCom
    v. FCC*, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2000); Third Report and
    Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996 (2000),
    Errata, DA No. 00-2163 (rel. Sept. 25, 2000), Erratum, DA No.
    00-2192 (rel. Oct. 4, 2000), Order, FCC 01-67 (rel. Feb. 22, 2001);
    Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 5099 (2003); Order, 18 FCC Rcd 10997 (2003).
    Prior to the adoption of Section 258, the Commission had taken
    various steps to address the slamming problem. *See*, *e.g.*,
    *Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers\'
    Long Distance Carriers*, CC Docket No. 94-129, Report and Order, 10
    FCC Rcd 9560 (1995), *stayed in part*, 11 FCC Rcd 856 (1995);
    *Policies and Rules Concerning Changing Long Distance Carrier*s, CC
    Docket No. 91-64, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992), *reconsideration denied*, 8
    FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related
    Tariffs, CC Docket No. 83-1145, Phase I, 101 F.C.C.2d 911, 101
    F.C.C.2d 935, *reconsideration* *denied*, 102 F.C.C.2d 503 (1985).

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.

[^23]: *Id.* § 64.1120(a)(1).

[^24]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c). For those carriers that use an
    independent third party for verification, our rules require that the
    verification method confirm at least six things: the identity of the
    subscriber; confirmation that the person on the call is authorized
    to make the carrier change; confirmation that the person on the call
    wants to make the change; the names of the carriers affected by the
    change; the telephone numbers to be switched; and the types of
    service involved. Our rules also require that carriers keep audio
    records of the verification for a minimum of two years. 47 C.F.R. §
    64.1120. Finally, the Commission\'s rules require that when a
    carrier \"is selling more than one type of telecommunications
    service ... that carrier must obtain separate authorization from the
    subscriber for each service sold ... Each authorization must be
    verified separately from any other authorizations obtained in the
    same solicitation." 47 C.F.R. § 21.1120(b).

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130.

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(b).

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(c).

[^28]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §64.1130(e)(1) -- (4).

[^29]: *See* Appendix I.

[^30]: *See* response at 3,7; supplemental response at 2.

[^31]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d).

[^32]: *See* response at 1- 2.

[^33]: *S**ee* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(c).

[^34]: *See* supplemental response at 2.

[^35]: The LOA also includes the following language: "Horizon Telecom,
    Inc. is not owned or affiliated with Executive Tour and Travel, who
    is solely responsible for the fulfillment of the 2 free roundtrip
    airline tickets...TRAVELER IS ENTITLED TO TWO COMPLIMENTARY ROUND
    TRIP AIRLINE TICKETS, WHEN STAYING AT ONE OF THE PARTIPATING HOTELS
    OR CONDOS FOR A MINIMUM NUMBER OF NIGHTS AND PAYING STANDARD RATES.
    TRAVELER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HOTEL AND AIR DEPARTURE TAXES. AIR,
    HOTEL, AND CONDO RESERVATIONS MUST BE MADE THROUGH FLY FREE. FOR
    COMPLETE INFORMATION PLEASE REFER TO THE VACATION GUIDE IN YOU
    \[sic\] TRAVEL PACKET OR VISIT WWW.FLYFREEAMERICA.COM/IIG."

[^36]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(c).

[^37]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(b).

[^38]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).

[^39]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).

[^40]: H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).

[^41]: *See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
    Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
    4388 (1991) ("*Southern California Broadcasting Co.*").

[^42]: *See, e.g.,* *Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana*,
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd
    1359, 1362, ¶ 10 (2001) ("*Callais Cablevision*") (issuing a Notice
    of Apparent Liability for, *inter alia*, a cable television
    operator's repeated signal leakage).

[^43]: *Southern California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5;
    *Callais Cablevision,* 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9.

[^44]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^45]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc*., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002) ("*SBC Forfeiture Order*").

[^46]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); s*ee also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2);
    *Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment
    of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,* Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945
    (2004).

[^47]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^48]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).

[^49]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).

[^50]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80; *Commission\'s Forfeiture Policy Statement and
    Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
    Guidelines*, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17114 (1997),
    *recon. denied* 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

[^51]: *See CCN, Inc., et al, Order to Show Cause and Opportunity for
    Hearing*, Order, 13 FCC Rcd 13599 (1998) (revoking carrier's
    operating authority based on findings of repeated violations); *see
    also, e.g., Business Options, Inc.,* Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 2916
    (2003); *NOS Communications, Inc., Affinity Network Incorporated and
    NOSVA Limited Partnership,* Consent Decree, 2003 WL 22439710 (2003).

[^52]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).

[^53]: *Brittan Communications International Corp.*, 15 FCC Rcd 4852
    (2000); *Amer-I-Net Services Corp*., 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000); *All
    American Telephone Company, Inc.*, 13 FCC Rcd 15040 (1998).

[^54]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 222.

[^55]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130.

[^56]: *See* 47 C.F.R.§§  64.1120; *see also* *1998* *Second Report and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 1508; *1997 FNPRM & Order on Reconsideration*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 10,674.

[^57]: 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).