**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | File No. EB-02-TC-003        |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| One Call Communications, Inc.    | ** | NAL/Acct. No. 200232170005   |
| d/b/a Opticom                    |    |                              |
|                                  | *  | FRN: 0003772910              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE**

**Adopted: September 17, 2002 Released: September 23, 2002**

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we propose to
    assess a forfeiture in the amount of \$5,120,000 against One Call
    Communications, Inc. d/b/a Opticom ("Opticom"),[^1] for apparent
    widespread violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    (the "Act"), and the Commission's rules governing operator service
    providers ("OSPs"). [^2] These violations appear to be particularly
    egregious because they appear to have occurred as part of a
    deliberate plan to mislead consumers.

# BACKGROUND

2.  Opticom provides operator services that can be accessed through
    aggregator telephones across the United States. [^3] These include
    hotel and motel room phones, as well as payphones located in
    airports, train stations, shopping malls, gas stations, and other
    locations where they serve the public or transient users. As an OSP,
    Commission rules require Opticom to identify itself audibly and
    distinctly at the beginning of each call, before the consumer incurs
    any charge; to permit the consumer to terminate the call at no
    charge before it is connected; to provide its rates to consumers
    upon request; and to provide instructions to the consumer on how to
    obtain the total cost of the call, which must be available either by
    dialing no more than two digits or by remaining on the line. [^4]

3.  Over the last several months, the Commission has received complaints
    from consumers who were connected to Opticom and billed for charges
    substantially higher than expected. For instance, one consumer filed
    a complaint alleging that Opticom failed to identify itself before
    she accepted a collect call, for which she was billed \$61.74 for 24
    minutes.[^5] The consumer assumed she would be billed by AT&T, her
    OSP of choice, and would not have accepted the call if she had known
    that she was being billed by Opticom.[^6] Another consumer
    complained that Opticom failed to identify itself before a collect
    call she placed to her home, for which she was charged \$31.94 for 4
    minutes.[^7] On the second collect call she made, she was asked by
    the operator which long distance carrier she preferred.[^8] She
    requested AT&T, but was billed \$45.67 by Opticom for a 16-minute
    call.[^9] This pattern of complaints suggested that consumers'
    dialing errors (for instance, dialing 1-800-COOLECT instead of
    1-800-COLLECT) were connecting them to Opticom, rather than the
    desired carrier, and that Opticom's failure to identify itself as
    required caused these errors to go unnoticed. The Enforcement Bureau
    initiated an investigation into Opticom's practices to determine
    whether Opticom was in compliance with the requirements for OSPs. As
    set forth in detail below, that investigation showed apparent
    widespread violation of the Commission's rules, which appears to be
    part of a deliberate scheme to take advantage of consumers' dialing
    errors.

# DISCUSSION

## Legal Requirements 

4.  Pursuant to Section 226(b)(1)(A) of the Act and Section 64.703(a)(1)
    of the rules, each provider of operator services must identify
    itself, audibly and distinctly, to the consumer at the beginning of
    each telephone call and before the consumer incurs any charge for
    the call.[^10] This practice is known as "branding." The purpose of
    branding is to ensure that the consumer knows who is carrying the
    call, in time to request rate information, and to decide whether to
    use that carrier's services. The branding requirement is intended to
    reduce the opportunity for carriers to impose excessive charges on
    uninformed consumers. In collect calling arrangements handled by a
    provider of operator services, both the party on the originating end
    of the call and the party on the terminating end of the call are
    considered "consumers."[^11] Therefore, to ensure that both parties
    are fully informed when making decisions regarding whether to
    initiate or accept a collect call, an OSP is required to brand on
    both ends of such calls.

5.  Each provider of operator services must also disclose immediately to
    the consumer, upon request and at no charge, a quotation of its
    rates or charges for the call.[^12] For collect calls, OSPs must
    provide this rate information to both the called party and the
    calling party. [^13] In addition, each provider of operator services
    must disclose audibly and distinctly to the consumer, at no charge
    and before connecting any call, instructions on how to obtain the
    total cost of the call or the maximum possible total cost of the
    call, before providing further oral advice to the consumer on how to
    proceed to make the call.[^14] This oral disclosure must instruct
    consumers that they may obtain applicable rate quotations either, at
    the option of the provider of operator services, by dialing no more
    than two digits or by remaining on the line.[^15]

## The Investigation

6.  As part of our investigation, Commission staff went to several
    aggregator locations and placed multiple calls, including collect
    calls, via Opticom from 43 different payphones. Commission staff was
    also on the receiving end of some of these collect calls to
    determine whether Opticom identified itself to the called party as
    well. The staff placed the calls from payphones in locations that
    are heavily used by consumers and travellers in the Washington, D.C.
    area, such as Reagan National Airport, Union Station, and L'Enfant
    Plaza Shopping Mall, as well as the Commission's own lobby. To
    determine whether Opticom was handling calls that were likely the
    result of misdialed access codes, the staff placed calls using 26
    different toll free numbers that are similar to well known operator
    service access numbers, such as MCI's 1-800-COLLECT, AT&T's
    1-800-CALLATT, and Verizon's 1-800-CALLGTE.[^16] The numbers were
    called multiple times, at different locations and times, to
    determine whether there was a pattern of misconduct, and to preclude
    the possibility that any lack of compliance was an anomaly.

7.  Our investigation revealed that Opticom failed to brand at the
    origination point of the telephone call on 25 of the 26 telephone
    numbers dialed, and failed to brand at the termination point on 13
    of the 26 telephone numbers.[^17] Our investigation also revealed
    that Opticom failed to provide rates or charges, or failed to
    provide instructions on how to obtain rates or charges, on all 26
    telephone numbers.[^18] Based on these facts, we find that Opticom
    is apparently liable for 38 separate violations of the branding
    requirement of Section 226(b)(1)(A) of the Act and Section
    64.703(a)(1) of the Commission's rules; and for 26 separate
    violations of the rate disclosure requirements of Section
    226(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Section 64.703(a)(3)(i) and
    64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules. We note that although we
    have only proposed forfeitures for the first of each type of
    violation associated with each access number for a total of 64
    violations, the calls made during our investigation revealed
    numerous (54) additional violations that are not the subject of this
    NAL.

    **IV. FORFEITURE AMOUNT**

8.  Pursuant to the Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement,* the base
    amount for violations of the operator services requirements is
    \$7,000.[^19] The maximum potential forfeiture is \$120,000 for each
    violation.[^20] Based on the criteria in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    Act and the upward adjustment criteria in the *Forfeiture Policy
    Statement*,[^21] however, we find that a substantial upward
    adjustment of the base forfeiture amount of \$7,000 appears to be
    warranted because the violations here appear to be egregious and
    repeated, because Opticom appears to have realized substantial
    economic gain from its misconduct, and because substantial consumer
    harm appears to have resulted from Opticom's pattern of misconduct.

9.  We believe that Opticom's practices are particularly egregious for
    several reasons. First, it appears that Opticom has willfully and
    deliberately devised a scheme repeated on numerous access numbers
    intended to mislead unwitting consumers into using their operator
    services while the consumer is attempting to dial another OSP. For
    example, if a consumer trying to dial 1-800-CALLATT misdials by one
    number, that customer will reach Opticom instead of AT&T. The
    consumer remains unaware that he or she has misdialed because
    Opticom fails to identify itself. We believe that in using such
    deceptive means to obtain the consumer's business, Opticom's
    practices are analogous to slamming and should be penalized
    accordingly.[^22] The consumer is even further left in the dark by
    not being able to obtain rate information that is essential for
    consumers who wish to make informed choices in a competitive
    telecommunications market. This is particularly egregious in light
    of the fact that the rates Opticom charges are significantly higher
    than the industry average. We believe, therefore, that Opticom
    realizes a substantial economic gain from these practices. Moreover,
    it appears that these misdialed numbers, such as 1-800-COOLECT or
    1-800-FONCALT, are not advertised as a means of reaching Opticom.
    Therefore, it appears that Opticom's only customers are those who
    make a mistake in attempting to dial another OSP's access code.

10. Furthermore, while both parties to a collect call are involved in
    making choices regarding whether to use an OSP's services, we
    believe that it is particularly troubling that the called party, the
    party that ultimately incurs the charges for the call, is not able
    to obtain the rates before accepting the call. Many consumers,
    reluctant to refuse a call from a relative or loved one for fear of
    an emergency, are therefore forced to enter unwittingly into an
    agreement to pay significantly higher rates than they would
    otherwise pay by accepting such a collect call, and Opticom reaps
    the benefits of such higher rates.

11. Accordingly, after applying the *Forfeiture Policy Statement* and
    statutory factors to the facts before us, we conclude that an
    \$80,000 forfeiture is apparently warranted for each of the 64
    violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and
    Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the
    rules, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture amount of
    \$5,120,000.

    **V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
    Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,
    47 C.F.R. § 1.80, One Call Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED
    of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
    \$5,120,000 for willful or repeated violations of Sections
    226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 226(b)(1)(A),
    (b)(1)(C)(i), and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and
    64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.703(a)(1),
    64.703(a)(3)(i), 64.703(a)(4). The amount specified was determined
    after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D), and the guidelines enumerated
    in the *Forfeiture Policy Statement*.

13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.80(h)
    of the Commission's Rules, that One Call Communications, Inc.,
    within thirty days of the date of release of this Notice of Apparent
    Liability, SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture[^23]
    OR SHALL FILE a written response showing why the proposed forfeiture
    should be reduced or not imposed.[^24]

14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified mail, return
    receipt requested, to One Call Communications, Inc d/b/a Opticom at
    801 Congressional Blvd., Carmel, IN 46032.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

> **APPENDIX**

**OPTICOM OSP VIOLATIONS - 2002**

**1 (800) CALLL -- ATT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)\*

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) COLLETC**

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) BELLOSUTH**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) CAALL -- ATT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) BBELLSOUTH**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4, 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) YOU -- SAVV**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4, 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) CALL -- ATL**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) COLLACT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4, 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) BELLS0OUTH**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) CLLL -- ATT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) ONE-DIMM**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4, 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

\* Denotes two violations on that particular date.

**1 (800) CA66 -- ATT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) 3ALL -- ATT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) CAALLGTE**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) CAL0 -- ATT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X), 6/4

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) FAIRCLL**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4, 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6

**1 (800) CALL -- AOT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6

**1 (800) CALL -- AT0**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) COLLEET**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4, 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) FAIRRCALL**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) CLAA -- ATT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) C1LL -- ATT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) FONCALT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) COILECT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6

**1 (800) FFAIRCALL**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X), 6/4

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Termination
Point): 6/4, 6/6

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

**1 (800) CALA -- ATT**

Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at Origination
Point): 5/30 (2X)

Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to Provide
Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6

[^1]: Opticom is located at 801 Congressional Boulevard, Carmel, IN
    46032.

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C)(i); 47 C.F.R. §§
    64.703(a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4). Our action in this Notice of
    Apparent Liability ("NAL") does not preclude further enforcement
    action. The staff is continuing to investigate Opticom's practices
    to determine whether they violate the Act and our rules in other
    respects.

[^3]: "Operator services" are defined by the Act and the Commission's
    rules as "any interstate telecommunications service initiated from
    an aggregator location that includes, as a component, any automatic
    or live assistance to a consumer to arrange for billing or
    completion, or both, of an interstate telephone call through a
    method other than: (1) automatic completion with billing to the
    telephone from which the call originated; or (2) completion through
    an access code used by the consumer, with billing to an account
    previously established with the carrier by the consumer." 47 U.S.C.
    § 226(a)(7)(A)-(B); 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.708(i)(1)-(2), (l). An
    "aggregator" is "any person that, in the ordinary course of its
    operations, makes telephones available to the public or to transient
    users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a
    provider of operator services." 47 U.S.C. § 226(a)(2); 47 C.F.R. §
    64.708(b).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C)(i); 47 C.F.R. §§
    64.703(a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4).

[^5]: Complaint No. IC-02-G31616, dated January 11, 2002, from Brenda
    Jackson.

[^6]: *Id.*

[^7]: Complaint No. IC-02-N70174, dated March 22, 2002, from Cheryle
    Creech.

[^8]: *Id.*

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 226(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 64.703(a)(1).

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.708(f).

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.703(a)(3)(i).

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i), 64.708(f); *Amendment of
    Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Providers and Call
    Aggregators*, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making, 11 FCC Rcd 4532, 4541 (1996).

[^14]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.703(a)(4).

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *See* Appendix.

[^17]: *Id.*

[^18]: *Id.*

[^19]: *Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
    Rules to Incorporate Forfeiture Guidelines*, Report and Order, 12
    FCC Rcd 17087, 17097 (1997) (*Forfeiture Policy Statement)*.

[^20]: Section 503(b)(2)(B) provides for forfeitures up to \$100,000 for
    each violation or a maximum of \$1,000,000 for each continuing
    violation by common carriers or an applicant for any common carrier
    license, permit, certificate or similar instrument. 47 U.S.C. §
    503(b)(2)(B). The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA)
    requires, however, that civil monetary penalties assessed by the
    federal government be adjusted for inflation based on the formula
    outlined in the DCIA. *See* Pub L. No. 104-134, § 31001, 110 Stat.
    1321 (1996). The current statutory maxima pursuant to Section
    503(b)(2)(B) are \$120,000 and \$1,200,000 for individual violations
    and continuing violations, respectively. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2), (5); *see also Amendment of
    Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of
    Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation*, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221
    (2000).

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4); *see also*
    *Forfeiture Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01.

[^22]: Slamming is the unauthorized change of a subscriber's preferred
    carrier. Section 258 of the Act, as amended by the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, states that "\[n\]o
    telecommunications carrier shall 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
    verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe." 47
    U.S.C. § 258. The Commission has used a base amount of \$80,000 per
    violation for slamming involving forged letters of agency, a
    deceptive practice analogous to that at issue in this case. *See,
    e.g.,* *Amer-I-Net Services Corporation*, Order of Forfeiture, 15
    FCC Rcd 3118 (2000); *see also* *Brittan Communications
    International Corp*., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 4852 (2000).

[^23]: The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
    drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. Opticom
    should include the reference "NAL/Acct. No. 200232170005" on its
    check or money order. Such remittance must be mailed to Forfeiture
    Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications
    Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. Requests
    for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief,
    Credit and Debt Management Center, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20554. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80(f)(3), (h). Send or mail any written responses
    regarding the reasons why the forfeiture should be reduced or not
    imposed to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau,
    Telecommunications Consumers Division, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C., 20554, ATTN: NAL/Acct. No. 200232170005. Any
    written response should focus on the mitigating factors outlined in
    the *Forfeiture Policy Statement* and Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    Act.