**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | File No. EB-04-IH-0518       |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Global Teldata II, LLC           | ** | NAL/Acct. No.200632080005    |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  | FRN No. 0010-8659-96         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER OF FORFEITURE**

**Adopted: April 18, 2007** **Released: May 3, 2007**

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION 

1.  In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of
    \$236,774 against Global Teldata II, LLC ("Global Teldata").
    Following the Notice of Apparent Liability and Order the Commission
    issued on October 31, 2005,[^1] we find that Global Teldata
    willfully and repeatedly violated section 64.1195 of the
    Commission's rules by failing to register with the Commission until
    November 17, 2004,[^2] and section 54.711(a) of those rules by
    failing to submit certain Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets
    ("Worksheets") prior to November 17, 2004.[^3] In addition, we find
    that Global Teldata willfully and repeatedly violated section 254(d)
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and
    section 54.706(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to contribute
    to the Universal Service Fund ("USF") in 2004 and early 2005.[^4]

# BACKGROUND

> **A. Obligations to Register, File Periodic Revenue Information, and
> Contribute to the USF**

2.  The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in
    the *NAL*, and need not be reiterated here at length. Global Teldata
    began operations on April 1, 2003 as a reseller of local exchange
    service and intrastate, interstate, and international interexchange
    service.[^5]

3.  Both the Act and the Commission's rules impose a number of
    obligations on providers of interstate telecommunications services,
    including resellers such as Global Teldata and providers of
    interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). These carriers
    must register with the Commission, report information, and
    contribute to the USF and, in most cases, other Commission
    programs.[^6] Section 64.1195(a) of the Commission's rules first
    requires all carriers that provide, or plan to provide, interstate
    telecommunications services to register with the Commission by
    submitting certain information on FCC Form 499-A, the annual
    "Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet."[^7] The Commission created
    this requirement to establish "a central repository of key facts
    about carriers" in order to monitor the entry and operation of such
    providers to ensure, among other things, that they are qualified, do
    not engage in fraud, and do not evade oversight.[^8]

4.  The Commission requires carriers to provide revenue information on
    FCC Form 499, Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, on a periodic
    basis, and the administrators use that information to determine each
    carrier's universal service and other contributions.[^9] In 2001,
    the Commission modified its reporting requirements for the universal
    service program to require carriers to file not only an Annual
    Worksheet,[^10] but also to file a Worksheet each quarter projecting
    their interstate and international revenue for the upcoming quarter
    and providing their interstate and international revenues from the
    previous quarter.[^11] The projected revenue information provided on
    the Quarterly Worksheets determines each carrier's contribution to
    the universal service fund on a quarterly basis, with a yearly
    true-up using the Annual Worksheet.[^12]

5.  Section 254(d) of the Act, section 54.706(a) of the Commission's
    rules, and Commission Orders further require all telecommunications
    carriers that provide interstate telecommunications services,
    including resellers such as Global Teldata and providers of
    interconnected VoIP, to contribute to the USF.[^13] This obligation
    is the product of a contribution factor and some portion of a
    carrier's revenue. The Universal Service Administrative Company
    ("USAC") is the administrator of the USF and bills contributors
    monthly, based on the information they report on FCC Form 499-Q,
    with an annual "true-up"as noted above.[^14]

    **B. The Commission's Investigation**

6.  On March 30, 2004, the audit staff of the Enforcement Bureau
    ("Bureau") sent a letter to Global Teldata requesting information
    pertaining to Global Teldata's compliance with section 64.1195 of
    the Commission's rules.[^15] Global Teldata responded on May 25,
    2004, briefly stating that it believed it was *de minimis* for USF
    purposes in 2003.[^16] Because Global Teldata had not registered
    with the FCC, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to it on
    October 28, 2004, which directed the company to submit a sworn
    written response relating to its apparent failure to comply with
    section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules, among other things.[^17]
    In its November 17, 2004 LOI Response, Global Teldata again stated
    that it believed it was *de minimis* for USF purposes in 2003 and
    that it was unaware it must file for the other programs
    notwithstanding a *de minimis* USF obligation.[^18] In addition,
    Global Teldata represented that its final revenue figures for
    January-October 2004 of \$204,016 exceeded for the first time the
    *de minimis* threshold for USF contributions.[^19] Global Teldata
    also stated that, through a billing software package provided by a
    third-party vendor, it automatically billed and collected partial
    payments for the USF from its end-user customers.[^20]

7.  On November 17, 2004, the same day that Global Teldata filed its
    response to the LOI, it filed a seven-month late 2004 Form 499-A
    (due April 1, 2004) and an initial quarterly Worksheet for the first
    quarter of 2005 (due November 1, 2004).[^21] As a result of these
    filings, USAC began invoicing Global Teldata for its USF
    obligations, and the company began paying current invoiced monthly
    USF contributions on February 14, 2005. It also paid a total of
    \$53,548 in several monthly installments for the overdue USF
    assessment attributable to 2004.

8.  On August 29, 2005, however, in response to a supplemental LOI,[^22]
    Global Teldata disclosed for the first time that its actual
    international and interstate telecommunications revenue from end
    users for January to October 2004 had been \$722,368, over three
    times the amount of \$204,016 originally reported in the November
    17, 2004 LOI Response.[^23] The revised amount was larger because
    Global Teldata did not previously include USF charges and subscriber
    line charges that it had been recovering automatically from its
    customers through line items in a billing software package that it
    had obtained from a third party.[^24] In addition, Global Teldata
    reported that cumulative interstate end user telecommunications
    revenue for the first two months of 2004 was \$128,785, an amount
    already in excess of the annual *de minimis* level.

9.  The Commission released the *Global Teldata NAL* on October 31,
    2005, concluding that Global Teldata apparently violated section
    254(d) of the Act[^25] and sections 54.706(a), 54.711(a), and
    64.1195 of the Commission's rules[^26] by willfully and repeatedly
    failing: (1) to register with the Commission until November 17,
    2004; (2) to file one quarterly Worksheet due on November 1, 2004;
    and (3) to make three contributions to the USF due on November 15
    and December 15, 2004, and January 15, 2005.[^27] The Commission
    proposed a total forfeiture of \$236,774 for these apparent willful
    and repeated violations.[^28]

10. Global Teldata filed its response to the *NAL* on November 29,
    2005.[^29] Global Teldata argued that the failure to register was
    not repeated since it occurred only on April 1, 2003, the date when
    it commenced interstate telecommunications operations without
    registering, and this violation is therefore beyond the applicable
    one-year limitations period in the forfeiture provisions of section
    503(b)(1)(B) of the Act.[^30] Global Teldata also claimed the
    proposed forfeitures for Global Teldata's failure to timely file its
    initial Quarterly Worksheet and failures to contribute to the USF
    should be reduced because a carrier's honest errors in determining
    the first time it becomes subject to filing and contribution
    requirements by exceeding the USF *de minimis* threshold involves
    relatively less culpability than a carrier's errors in making
    successive filings.[^31] Finally, Global Teldata contended a total
    forfeiture that represents 27 percent of Global Teldata's interstate
    telecommunications revenue in 2004 is excessive under any
    measure.[^32]

11. Under section 503(b)(1)(B) 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.[^33] 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.[^34]
    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,[^35] and the Commission has so interpreted the
    term in the section 503(b) context.[^36] The Commission may also
    assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not
    willful.[^37] "Repeated" means that the act was committed or omitted
    more than once, or lasts more than one day.[^38] The legislative
    history to section 312(f)(2) of the Act clarifies that this
    definition of "repeated" applies to both sections 312 and 503(b) of
    the Act, in the same way that the definition of "willful" does.[^39]
    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.[^40] The Commission will
    then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the
    evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission
    rule.[^41]

12. 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 million
    for a single act or failure to act.[^42] In determining the
    appropriate forfeiture amount, the Commission considers 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."[^43]

# DISCUSSION

13. As discussed below, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that
    Global Teldata willfully and repeatedly engaged in all of the
    violations described in the *Global Teldata NAL*. More specifically,
    we find that Global Teldata willfully and repeatedly violated
    section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules by failing to register
    with the Commission; section 54.711(a) of the Commission's rules by
    failing to file one Quarterly Worksheet on a timely basis; and
    section 254(d) of the Act and section 54.706(a) of the Commission's
    rules by failing to contribute to the USF on a timely basis on three
    occasions.

14. In the *Global Teldata NAL*, the Commission proposed a forfeiture of
    \$236,774 for Global Teldata's apparent willful and repeated
    violations of section 254(d) of the Act and sections 54.706(a),
    54.711(a), and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules.[^44] The
    Commission proposed a forfeiture of \$100,000 for Global Teldata's
    failure to register with the Commission within the one-year period
    preceding the issuance of the *NAL*. For Global Teldata's apparent
    failure to timely file Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets, the
    Commission proposed a forfeiture of \$50,000 for the one instance of
    non-filing within the one-year period preceding the *NAL* (*i.e.,*
    the filing due November 1, 2004). Finally, for Global Teldata's
    apparent failure to pay universal service contributions, the
    Commission proposed a base forfeiture amount of \$20,000 for three
    months of nonpayment within the one-year period preceding the *NAL*
    (*i.e.*, the payments due on November 15 and December 15, 2004, and
    January 15, 2005), for a base forfeiture of \$60,000, and then added
    one-half of the total unpaid universal service contributions
    (\$26,774) to the base forfeiture of \$60,000, for a total proposed
    forfeiture of \$86,774. These forfeiture calculations were
    consistent with other, similar actions the Commission has recently
    taken involving apparent USF violations. As explained below, we
    reject Global Teldata's arguments to cancel or reduce the amount of
    the forfeiture, and therefore impose the full forfeiture of
    \$236,774.

    **A. Global Teldata's Continuous Violation of the Requirement to
    Register Was Within the Applicable One-Year Limitations Period**

15. In the *NAL*, the Commission found that Global Teldata was
    apparently liable for failing to register pursuant to section
    64.1195. Global Teldata contends that the violation for failure to
    register occurred on April 1, 2003, the date when it commenced
    interstate telecommunications service without registering, and that
    the violation was not repeated thereafter. Accordingly, it argues
    that this singular violation did not occur within the one-year
    limitations period for forfeiture actions set forth in section
    503(b)(6) of the Act, in this case October 31, 2004 (*i.e.*, one
    year before the *NAL* was issued on October 31, 2005).[^45] In
    particular, Global Teldata contends that because section
    503(b)(1)(B) makes an entity liable for a forfeiture only when it
    has "willfully or *repeatedly*" (emphasis added) violated the Act or
    a Commission order or rule, that provision does not make an entity
    so liable for engaging in a *continuing* violation. Global Teldata
    appears to argue that if Congress had intended in section 503 for
    "repeated" to mean "an act that continues for more than one day" as
    opposed to its "plain meaning \[of\] an act that is committed more
    than once," Congress would have explicitly so stated, as it has in
    section 312(f)(2) of the Act.[^46] Global Teldata therefore
    concludes that, because the Commission's use of an overbroad
    definition of "repeated" as including a continuing act was improper
    under section 503, its failure to register on April 1, 2003 did not
    occur within a year before the issuance of the *NAL* and the alleged
    violation is therefore beyond the applicable limitations period for
    this forfeiture.[^47]

16. We reject this argument because Global Teldata misstates and
    misinterprets the clear language and legislative history of these
    statutes and their application to the present proceeding. Section
    312(f)(1) defines "willful" as "the conscious and deliberate
    commission or omission of \[an\] act, irrespective of any intent to
    violate" the law. Section 312(f)(2) defines "repeated" as "the
    commission or omission of \[an\] act more than once or, if such
    commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day." In
    1982, Congress extended both of the definitions of these respective
    terms to section 503. After discussing the definition of "willful,"
    the Conference Report states:

    'Repeated' means more than once, or where the act is continuous, for
    more than one day. Whether an act is considered to be "continuous"
    would depend upon the circumstances in each case. The definitions
    are intended primarily to clarify the language in sections 312 and
    503, and are consistent with the Commission's application of those
    terms in Midwest Radio-Television, Inc., 45 F.C.C. 1137 (1983).[^48]

    Thus, Congress clearly intended that the definition of "repeated" in
    section 312 include a continuous violation lasting for more than one
    day and that such a repeated violation would subject a violator to
    the section 503 forfeiture provisions. This interpretation is also
    confirmed by the plain language of section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
    which authorizes the Commission to assess an individual forfeiture
    for each violation or *each day of a continuing violation*," up to
    the statutory maximum for a single act or failure to act.[^49]

17. Applying this standard to the instant case, we conclude that Global
    Teldata's failure to register was continuing and, therefore,
    "repeated" within the meaning of section 503. Global Teldata's
    failure to register left it outside the purview of the Commission
    and USAC on a continuing basis each day it provided service without
    registering after April 1, 2003. These negative consequences
    continued through the Bureau's first knowledge of Global Teldata's
    non-compliance through the 2004 audit and ended only when the
    company finally registered with the Commission on November 17, 2004.
    Accordingly, we find Global Teldata's violation of section 64.1195
    of the Commission's rules occurred within the one-year limitations
    period before the *NAL* was issued on October 31, 2005.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **The Forfeiture Amounts Are Not Excessive**

    1\. [Failure to Timely File the Initial Quarterly
    Worksheet]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
18. The Commission proposed a \$50,000 forfeiture for Global Teldata's
    failure to timely file one Worksheet. Global Teldata admits that it
    filed the Worksheet late, and the Worksheet reported incorrect
    revenues, but raises four arguments as to why the proposed
    forfeiture should be reduced to \$10,000 under the factors
    enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act.[^50] First, it
    contends that, in the course of normal business practice, it did not
    learn that it was above the *de minimis* level until November
    2004.[^51] Second, Global Teldata claims that the initial exclusion
    of reportable revenues, *i.e.*, revenues from USF and subscriber
    line charges that it had been recovering through its third-party
    billing software, was a simple mistake.[^52] Third, it also asserts
    that for a company that has evolved from *de minimis* to covered
    status, deciding the timing and content of a first Worksheet is a
    matter of judgment and, thus, honest errors are more likely.[^53]
    Fourth, Global Teldata argues that a reduction is warranted because
    it has timely filed all worksheets since it first learned that it
    was above the *de minimis* level.[^54]

19. We decline to reduce the forfeiture. Global Teldata and its
    corporate predecessor have been in the telecommunications industry
    for years and were on notice of the Commission's reporting and
    contribution requirements. With respect to its first argument, we
    are not persuaded by Global Teldata's claim that it did not learn
    that it had exceeded the *de minimis* level in the course of normal
    business until November 2004. Even under its original, incorrect
    computation methodology that excluded USF and subscriber line
    charges from interstate telecommunications revenues, it should have
    realized it was approaching the *de minimi*s threshold long before
    apparent telecommunications revenues reached approximately \$200,000
    in October 2004.

20. Global Teldata's second assertion, that this incorrect methodology
    in 2004 was a "simple mistake," is belied by its continued use of
    that erroneous approach until the August 29, 2005 LOI Response,
    despite repeated opportunities to re-examine its improper
    computation methodology and data in the course of preparing two
    previous LOI responses and several late-filed Form 499s. Throughout
    this period, its own software-generated billing detail should have
    alerted it to these issues. Thus, from at least the beginning of
    2004, Global Teldata's failures to follow the publicly available
    Worksheet instructions for these calculations were willful because
    it made the conscious decision that it did not have to file
    Quarterly Worksheets.

21. We reject Global Teldata's third argument, that the latitude for
    error should be greater in the filing of a first Worksheet. Rather,
    the filing of the first Worksheet is more critical because, like
    registration, it first brings to the attention of the Commission and
    USAC that a carrier's revenues are now required to be made part of
    the Fund.

22. Fourth and finally, we will not reduce the forfeiture for Global
    Teldata's claim that it has timely filed all current Worksheets
    since its late registration. Post-investigation corrective measures
    are not sufficient to avoid enforcement action.[^55]

23. Accordingly, throughout the one-year period preceding Global
    Teldata's first Worksheet filing in November 2004, its repeated
    failures to recognize its filing obligations weigh decisively
    against any reduction to the forfeiture. Had Global Teldata been
    acting responsibly, it would have realized that its revenues
    exceeded the *de minimis* level, not in October 2004, but much
    earlier in February 2004. Quarterly Worksheets are due on the first
    day of February, May, August, and November of each year, and must
    project a carrier's revenue for the following quarter. Because
    Global Teldata's revenues exceeded the *de minimis* threshold in
    February 2004, its first Quarterly Worksheet should have been filed
    in November 2003. Even if Global Teldata did not in good faith
    anticipate in late 2003 that its revenues would exceed the *de
    minimis* threshold in early 2004, by no means should it have missed
    filing the first Quarterly Worksheet that was due on May 1 after its
    revenues actually exceeded this threshold in February 2004, let
    alone the second filing due August 1, 2004. As a result, giving
    Global Teldata the benefit of the doubt, the filing due November 1,
    2004 was no less than the third deadline that the company missed.
    The *NAL* only assessed a forfeiture for the filing due November 1,
    2004 because that was the only one Global Teldata missed within the
    one-year limitations period preceding the *NAL*. In sum, we reject
    Global Teldata's four-part argument that the proposed forfeiture
    should be reduced to \$10,000 under the factors enumerated in
    section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

    2\. [Failure to Pay Three Monthly USF Contributions]{.underline}

24. Global Teldata also argues that the three base forfeiture amounts of
    \$20,000 for each of the three monthly failures to contribute to
    USF, as well as the single upward adjustment thereto of \$26,772,
    should be reduced to \$10,000 for each month without any upward
    adjustment. While admitting it failed to pay, it states that the
    total proposed forfeiture of \$86,774 "overstates the gravity of the
    violations" for the same reasons as the proposed forfeiture for
    failure to file the first Worksheet. According to Global Teldata, a
    company new to the system can be late simply because of the
    adjustment from *de minimis* to covered status. [^56] Finally, it
    states that the late payments were not an attempt to avoid its
    obligations and that it later paid all sums due before issuance of
    the *NAL*.[^57]

25. We reject these arguments for the reasons discussed above. A
    carrier's correct and timely payments of initial contributions to
    the USF are a natural extension of its correct and timely
    registration and submission of initial Worksheets. Like its first
    reporting obligations, its first payments resulting from the
    transition from *de minimis* to covered status are all the more
    important because they first bring the carrier fully into the
    system. As a long-time participant in the telecommunications
    industry, Global Teldata should have attended to its regulatory
    obligations beginning in 2003 by carefully tracking the growth of
    its interstate telecommunications revenues, examining line items on
    its own billing statements, and reviewing publicly available
    instructions for the correct methodology. Moreover, this is not just
    a question of whether Global Teldata was deliberately attempting to
    avoid its obligations, but rather whether it conscientiously
    performed its important affirmative duties. Given the vital
    regulatory objectives at issue, we believe that a forfeiture
    composed of the base forfeiture amount for the three missed payments
    in the one-year period preceding the *NAL*, plus one-half the total
    unpaid USF contributions constitutes a fair measure of Global
    Teldata's violations.[^58] Finally, as discussed above,
    post-investigation payments are not sufficient to avoid enforcement
    action.

    3\. [The Total Forfeiture Relative to Interstate Revenues Is Not
    Excessive or Unjust]{.underline}

26. Finally, Global Teldata claims that the total proposed forfeiture of
    \$236,000 is 27 percent of its interstate and international
    telecommunications revenues in 2004 and is therefore excessive and
    unjust.[^59] We find no merit in this unsupported, blanket
    assertion. The *NAL* recounts at length the vital policy
    considerations that underlie the calculation of the proposed
    forfeiture,[^60] and we have revisited some of those concerns in
    this Order. To the extent Global Teldata is asserting a claim of
    inability to pay under Commission precedent, we note that the
    Commission has considered a carrier's gross revenue from all
    sources, not just interstate telecommunications revenues, as the
    best indicator of its ability to pay.[^61] The proposed forfeiture
    of \$236,774 is less than three per cent of Global Teldata's total
    revenues for 2004.[^62] The Commission has previously found
    forfeitures of up to nearly eight per cent of a company's revenue
    acceptable.[^63] As a result, Global Teldata's contention that the
    total proposed forfeiture is excessive and unjust must be rejected.

# CONCLUSION

27. Global Teldata withheld payments to a Congressionally-mandated
    telecommunications program, thereby denying that program of
    essential funding for an extended period of time. In light of the
    seriousness, duration and scope of the violations, we find that the
    total forfeiture of \$236,774 proposed in the *NAL* is warranted. As
    discussed above, this forfeiture amount includes: (1) a total
    penalty of \$100,000 for failing to register with the
    Commission; (2) a total penalty of \$50,000 for failing to file one
    Worksheet within the year preceding issuance of the *NAL*; and (3) a
    total penalty of \$86,774 for failing to make three monthly
    universal service contributions within the year preceding issuance
    of the *NAL*.

# V. ORDERING CLAUSES {#v.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

28\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and section
1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that Global Teldata
II, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of
\$236,774 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the
Commission's rules.

29\. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for
in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 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.[^64] Payment of the
forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the
order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include
the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or
money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent
to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261,
receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 9116229. Requests for
full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate
Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445 12th St, SW, Room 1A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554.[^65]

30\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this ORDER OF FORFEITURE shall
be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to David G.
Crocker, Early, Lennon, Crocker & Bartosiewicz, 900 Commercial Building,
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007-8844.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

[^1]: *See Global Teldata II, LLC*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17264 (2005) ("*Global Teldata
    NAL*" or "*NAL*").

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195.

[^3]: *Id*. at § 54.711(a).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).

[^5]: *See* Letter from Darius B. Withers, Counsel to Global Teldata II,
    LLC, to Gerald H. Chakerian, Attorney, Investigations and Hearings
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
    dated November 17, 2004 ("November 17, 2004 LOI Response") at 1.
    Global Teldata II, LLC was formed in a corporate reorganization,
    effective April 1, 2003, of a predecessor entity which also had
    never registered with the Commission.

[^6]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254(d) ("Any other provider of interstate
    telecommunications may be required to contribute to the preservation
    and advancement of universal service if the public interest so
    requires."); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a); *Universal Service Contribution
    Methodology, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlined Contributor Reporting
    Requirements Associated with Administration of Telecommunications
    Relay Service, North American Numbering Plan, Local Number
    Portability, and Universal Service Support Mechanisms,
    Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
    Administration of the North American Numbering Plan and North
    American Numbering Plan Cost Recovery Contribution Factor and Fund
    Size, Number Resource Optimization, Telephone Number Portability,
    Truth-In-Billing and Billing Format, IP-Enabled Services*, Report
    and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket Nos. 06-122
    and 04-36, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90-571, 92-237, 99-200,
    95-116, and 98-170, 21 FCC Rcd 7518 (2006) (extending section 254(d)
    permissive authority to require interconnected VoIP providers to
    contribute to the USF) (*2006 Contribution Methodology Order*).

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195.

[^8]: *Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Provisions of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Third Report & Order and Second
    Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996, 16024, ¶ 159 (2000).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.711. Pursuant to the *de minimis* exception,
    contributors that owe less than \$10,000 to the USF in any given
    year are not required to contribute to the fund or file Worksheets
    (annual or quarterly) for that year for purposes of the USF. 47
    C.F.R. § 54.708. (*See* note 11, *infra*, on quarterly reporting.)
    Based on Global Teldata's reported revenue for 2003 as reported in
    its 2004 Form 499-A, it was a *de minimis* carrier in 2003. Even
    though the *de minimis* exception excuses carriers from the
    requirements for USF purposes, however, the rules still require
    carriers such as Global Teldata to file annual Worksheets for
    purposes of other regulatory programs, such as the
    Telecommunications Relay Service ("TRS"). *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    64.604(c)(5)(iii)(B) (requiring common carriers to submit Worksheets
    for the TRS Fund); s*ee Wireline Competition Bureau Reminds De
    Minimis Telecommunications Providers of Certain FCC Registration,
    Reporting, and Contribution Requirements*, Public Notice, WC Docket
    No. 06-122 (WCB rel. Jan. 31, 2007).

[^10]: *See FCC Form 499-A Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet −
    Annual Filing,* http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form499-A/499a-2003.pdf
    (April 2003) ("Annual Worksheet").

[^11]: *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Petition for
    Reconsideration filed by AT&T*, Report and Order and Order on
    Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 5748 (2001) ("*Quarterly Reporting
    Order*"). The first Quarterly Worksheet, reporting revenue data from
    the first quarter of 2001 (January 1 through March 31, 2001) was due
    May 11, 2001; thereafter, carriers report their revenues for the
    prior quarter by the beginning of the second month in each quarter
    (*i.e*., February 1, May 1, August 1, and November 1). *See
    Quarterly Reporting Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 5755, ¶ 19 & n.32. *See
    FCC Form 499-Q Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet − Quarterly
    Filing for Universal Service Contributors*,
    http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form499-Q/499q.pdf (April 2003) ("Quarterly
    Worksheet")*.*

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.709(a); "Telecommunications Carrier
    Registration Information Now Available Online," Public Notice, DA
    01-2465 (rel. Oct. 29, 2001). The Commission modified its rules on
    carrier contributions to the universal service fund. *See
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, 1998 Biennial
    Regulatory Review − Streamlined Contributor Reporting Requirements
    Associated with Administration of Telecommunications Relay Services,
    North American Numbering Plan, Local Number Portability, and
    Universal Service Support Mechanisms, Telecommunications Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Administration of the North
    American Numbering Plan and North American Numbering Plan Cost
    Recovery Contribution Factor and Fund Size, Number Resource
    Optimization, Telephone Number Portability, Truth-in-Billing and
    Billing Format,* Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952 (2002) ("*Interim Contribution
    Order*"). As of April 1, 2003, USAC bases a carrier's universal
    service obligation on the carrier's projected collected revenue
    rather than its historic gross-billed revenue. *Interim Contribution
    Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24969-74, ¶¶ 29-39.

[^13]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). *See* note 6, *supra*.

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).

[^15]: *See* Letter from Hugh Boyle, Chief Auditor, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, to Global Teldata II, LLC, dated March 30, 2004 ("March
    30, 2004 Audit Letter").

[^16]: *See* E-mail from Erin R. Swansiger, Counsel to Global Teldata
    II, LLC, to Hugh Boyle, Chief Auditor, Investigations and Hearings
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
    dated May 25, 2004. *See* note 8, *supra*, regarding the *de
    minimis* exception for filing if a carrier's USF contribution in any
    given year is less than \$10,000.

[^17]: *See* Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief,
    Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, to Erin R. Swansiger, Counsel to Global
    Teldata II, LLC, dated October 28, 2004 ("October 28, 2004 LOI").

[^18]: November 17, 2004 LOI Response (Inquiry Nos. 7-11).

[^19]: *See* *id*. (Inquiry Nos. 7-8) and Exhibits E & F. These
    responses indicated that cumulative telecommunications revenue from
    January to October 2004 was \$204,016.

[^20]: *See* *id*. (Inquiry No. 14) and Exhibit G. Global Teldata does
    not state whether it was specifically aware of these charges and
    revenues.

[^21]: *See id*. (Inquiry Nos. 7-8) and Exhibits E & F. The Form 499-A
    was apparently intended to serve both as a late-filed registration
    that had been due since the beginning of business on April 1, 2003,
    and as a late-filed annual 2004 Form 499-A Worksheet for 2003 that
    had been due since April 1, 2004.

[^22]: Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, to Darius B. Withers, Counsel to Global Teldata II, LLC,
    dated August 17, 2005.

[^23]: *See* Letter from Darius B. Withers, Counsel to Global Teldata
    II, LLC, to Gerald H. Chakerian, Attorney, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, dated August 29, 2005 ("August 29, 2005 LOI Response").
    *See* note 14, *supra*, regarding its previously reported revenues.

[^24]: *See* August 29, 2005 LOI Response at 1 and Exhibit A. Global
    Teldata's first quarterly Worksheet that was late-filed on November
    17, 2004 contained this same error. The subscriber line charge (also
    called end user common line charge) is a fixed, non-usage sensitive
    access charge to the end user for the dedicated line from the last
    local exchange carrier central office to the end user's premises.
    *See* sections 69.104 and 69.152 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 69.104, 69.152.

[^25]: 47 U.S.C. § 254.

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.706(a), 54.711(a), 64.1195.

[^27]: *Global Teldata NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 17270, ¶¶ 14-15.

[^28]: *Id*. at ¶¶ 22-28.

[^29]: Response of Global Teldata II, LLC, filed November 29, 2005 ("NAL
    Response").

[^30]: *Id*. at 3-4. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). *See also* 47
    C.F.R. § 1.80(c)(3).

[^31]: NAL Response at 4.

[^32]: *Id*.

[^33]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).

[^35]: H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).

[^36]: *See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
    Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
    4388, ¶ 5 (1991) ("*Southern California Broadcasting Co.*").

[^37]: *See, e.g.,* *Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana*,
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd
    1359 (2001) (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, *inter
    alia*, a cable television operator's repeated signal leakage)
    ("*Callais Cablevision, Inc*.").

[^38]: *Callais Cablevision, Inc.,* 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9; *Southern
    California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5.

[^39]: *See* *A-O Broadcasting Corporation*, Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC
    Rcd 27069, 27072, ¶ 12 & n. 16 (2003); *recon. denied*., 20 FCC Rcd
    756 (2005) ("*A-O Broadcasting*") (radio broadcaster committed
    continuing violations for failure to install certain equipment and
    to maintain a main studio for five weeks).

[^40]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^41]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc*., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).

[^42]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B).

[^43]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); *see also Forfeiture Policy Statement*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 17100, ¶ 27; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).

[^44]: *Global Teldata NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 17270-73, ¶¶ 14-22.

[^45]: NAL Response at 3 (citing 20 FCC Rcd at 17269, ¶ 13). Section
    503(b)(6) of the Act states: "No forfeiture penalty shall be
    determined or imposed against any person under this section if ...
    the violation charged occurred more than 1 year prior to the date of
    issuance of the required notice or notice of apparent liability." 47
    U.S.C. § 503(b)(6)(B).

[^46]: NAL Response at 3. As indicated above, section 312(f)(2) of the
    Act states: "The term 'repeated', when used with reference to the
    commission or omission of an act, means the commission or omission
    of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is
    continuous, for more than one day."

[^47]: *Id*.

[^48]: H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). *Midwest
    Radio-Television, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 45 F.C.C.
    1137 (1983), *rev'd on other grounds*, *United States v. Midwest
    Radio-Television, Inc.*, 249 F. Supp 936 (D. Minn. 1966), concerned
    a radio licensee's failure to announce paid sponsorship of certain
    broadcast material, in violation of section 317(a) of the Act, 47
    U.S.C. § 317(a). The Commission imposed two forfeitures for two
    broadcasts of the same material within 36 minutes of each other,
    *i.e.*, on the same day. In commenting on the general meaning of the
    then-existing version of "repeated violation" in section 503(b), the
    Commission stated that this provision allows "a separate forfeiture
    for each day during which repeated violations occur or an
    uninterrupted continuing violation continues." *Id*., 45 F.C.C. at
    1142, ¶ 17. *See also Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, 6 FCC
    Rcd at 4388, ¶ 8 (discussing the parallel application of the
    definition of "willful" violations).

[^49]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Moreover, prior
    Commission decisions have recognized that both definitions in
    section 312(f) apply to section 503(b) in a parallel manner, making
    explicit references to the legislative history noted above. *See*,
    *e.g.*, *A-O Broadcasting Corporation*, note 34, *supra*. Similarly,
    these cases affirm that an on-going failure to comply with
    regulatory requirements may constitute a "continuing" and,
    therefore, "repeated" violation for purposes of section 503. For
    example, in *Western Wireless*, the Commission issued an NAL against
    a cellular carrier for willful and continuing rule violations by
    failing to obtain authorization regarding the environmental impact
    of its antenna structure for five years, beginning from the time of
    construction and continuing through the date of the decision.
    *Western Wireless Corporation*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 10319, 10325-26, ¶¶ 15, 19-20 & nn. 55-56
    ("*Western Wireless*"); *modified on other grounds*, 20 FCC Rcd 1245
    (2004). Moreover, in a context specifically analogous to Global
    Teldata's limitations argument here, the Commission stated in
    *Western Wireless* that "*this violation has continued into the
    one-year limitations period for a* *forfeiture*." *Id*., 18 FCC Rcd
    at 10325, ¶ 15 (emphasis added).

[^50]: *See* paragraph 13, *supra*, regarding section 503(b)(2)(D).

[^51]: Response to NAL at 4.

[^52]: *Id*., *see* *also* paragraph 8, *supra*.

[^53]: Response to NAL at 4. In this context, Global Teldata incorrectly
    states that the penalty for late-filing the first required worksheet
    should not be increased simply because it is the first filing. In
    fact, the proposed forfeiture of \$50,000 is the base forfeiture
    amount, and there was no upward adjustment.

[^54]: *Id.*

[^55]: *See Communication Services Integrated, Inc.,* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 17251, 17257, ¶ 16 ("*CSII*");
    *AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.,* Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866,
    21870-71, ¶¶ 13-14 (2002); *America's Tele-Network Corp.*, Order of
    Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 22350, 22355, ¶ 15 (2001).

[^56]: Response to NAL at 5.

[^57]: *Id*.

[^58]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Globcom, Inc.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19904, ¶ 27 (2003);
    *Inphonic, Inc.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
    Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13277, 13287 ¶ 29 (2005); *CSII*, 20 FCC Rcd at
    17261, ¶ 27 (2005).

[^59]: *Id*. Global Teldata has correctly calculated this percentage
    because it reflects Exhibit A of the August 29, 2005 LOI Response,
    showing that the true amount of Global Teldata's interstate
    telecommunications revenue from end users for the entire year 2004
    was \$868,542.

[^60]: *See Global Teldata NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 17265-67,17271-75, ¶¶
    4-8, 17-19, 21, 24-28.

[^61]: *See e.g.*, *PJB Communications of Virginia*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2088-89, ¶¶ 8-9 (1992).

[^62]: *See* the August 29, 2005 LOI Response at Exhibit A.

[^63]: *See* *Local Long Distance, Inc.*, 15 FCC Rcd at 24389, ¶ 11.

[^64]: 47 U.S.C § 504(a).

[^65]: *See* 47 U.S.C § 1.1914.