#########  Before the

#########  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

) File No. ENF 98-09

All American Telephone, Inc. )

) NAL/Acct. No. 816EF0008

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture )

**ORDER OF FORFEITURE**

Adopted: September 5, 2001 Released: September 10, 2001

By the Commission:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1 In this Order, we assess a forfeiture of \$920,000 against All
American Telephone, Inc. (All American) for willful or repeated
violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and
our rules and orders. We find that All American willfully or repeatedly
violated section 258 of the Act[^1] and the Commission's related
rules[^2] and orders[^3] by changing the preferred interexchange
carriers (PICs) designated by 12 consumers without their authorization,
a practice commonly referred to as "slamming." We find All American's
slamming violations particularly egregious because All American, in
requesting local exchange carriers (LECs) to make the PIC changes,
relied on Letters of Authorization (LOAs) that contained forgeries of
the signatures of consumers.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2 The facts and circumstances leading to the issuance of our July 6,
1998 Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL)[^4] are fully recited in the NAL
and need not be reiterated at length. Between September 1997 and March
1998, the Commission received numerous written consumer complaints
alleging slamming by All American. The Commission investigated 13 of
these complaints. Each complainant contended that All American had
converted his or her designated PIC without authorization through the
apparent use of falsified or forged LOAs. All of the complainants
provided sworn statements and evidence in support of their complaints.

3 Following an investigation of the above complaints, which included an
opportunity for All American to respond to the allegations raised by
complainants, the Commission issued the *All American NAL*. The
Commission found that All American's failure to obtain the complainants'
authorization before submitting PIC-change requests apparently violated
section 258 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders against
slamming.[^5] In addition, the Commission determined that the
complainants had provided compelling evidence that All American
apparently relied on falsified or forged LOAs in effecting these
unauthorized conversions. Indeed, the Commission noted that several
complainants had provided evidence that "information on the purported
LOA is incorrect, or, as in the case of a purported signature by Ms.
Kitay's deceased husband, is clearly fabricated."[^6]

4 In view of the facts and circumstances surrounding All American's
apparent slamming violations, the Commission found that All American was
apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture of \$80,000 for each of the
13 unauthorized conversions, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of
\$1,040,000.[^7] In proposing this forfeiture, the Commission stated
that, despite the Commission's earlier warnings to interexchange
carriers about the use of forged LOAs, All American had apparently
willfully or repeatedly engaged in a clear pattern of fraudulent conduct
to intentionally slam consumers.[^8] The Commission noted that this
pattern of conduct distinguished the case from prior NALs involving
forged LOAs, and therefore justified the \$80,000 forfeiture amount for
each of the unauthorized conversions.[^9]

**III. DISCUSSION**

5 While All American does not deny that it submitted PIC-change orders
to the complainants' local exchange carriers, the company contends that
we should rescind the proposed forfeiture with regard to all 13 slamming
complaints in the record because the Commission failed to establish the
"element of intent necessary to sustain a forgery finding."[^10] All
American further asserts that the Commission should not consider the
Saines and Varughese complaints in its forfeiture calculation because
neither complaint specifically alleged that All American forged the
signatures at issue.[^11] Further, All American contends that it has
expert testimony proving that the signature on the Joyce LOA was not, in
fact, forged.[^12] Finally, All American argues that even if it is found
liable, the proposed forfeiture is excessive in light of: 1) Commission
precedent; 2) All American's asserted history of compliance; and 3) All
American's alleged inability to pay the fine. We take these arguments in
turn.

######### Imposition of a Forfeiture

6 All American contends that the it cannot be held liable for any of the
13 alleged slamming violations because the Commission failed to present
evidence that All American intended to defraud consumers through the use
of apparently forged or falsified LOAs.[^13] We disagree. First, section
258 of the Act imposes liability on a carrier responsible for submitting
an unauthorized charge, regardless of intent.[^14] Further, the
Commission has stated on numerous occasions that a carrier's alleged
lack of knowledge concerning forged LOAs does not exonerate the
carrier.[^15] Even if All American's marketing agents forged the LOAs at
issue, without the company's actual knowledge, section 217 of the Act
provides that a carrier such as All American is nevertheless liable for
its agents' actions.[^16]

7 As the Commission stated in earlier forfeiture orders, it has long
been established that the word "willfully," as used in section 503(b) of
the Act, does not require a demonstration that the carrier knew that it
was acting unlawfully.[^17] Rather, section 503(b) requires only a
finding that the carrier knew it was doing the acts in question and that
the acts were not accidental.[^18] We find here that All American knew
it was submitting the changes, and reject All American's claim that it
is not liable for the violations because it lacked actual knowledge that
the LOAs were forged or that its actions would defraud consumers.[^19]
Furthermore, we note that section 503(b) authorizes the Commission to
assess forfeitures for willful *or repeated* violations of the Act.[^20]
The record supports a finding that All American's violations were
repeated, as well as willful, within the meaning of the Act.[^21]

8 Moreover, All American's argument must fail under the express terms of
section 258 and our implementing rules, which prohibit the submission of
unauthorized PIC changes. For purposes of determining All American's
liability for slamming violations, we need not determine whether All
American, its marketing agents, or some other party forged or signed the
LOAs at issue here. Rather, we need only find (1) that the complainants
did not authorize the PIC changes by signing the LOAs, and (2) that All
American submitted these unauthorized PIC changes to the complainants'
LECs.[^22] As noted in the *NAL*, All American concedes that it used the
LOAs in question in submitting PIC changes for the complainants.[^23]
Further, the complainants contend that they did not authorize the LOAs
relied upon by All American, and many have noted that the LOAs at issue
bear erroneous dates, misspelled or incorrect names, and other indicia
of falsification or forgery.[^24] With the exception of the three
complaints discussed below, All American has submitted no evidence to
counter the complainants' assertions that they were slammed, or that the
LOAs were forged or falsified. Therefore, we conclude that, except to
the extent discussed below, All American is liable for each of the
proposed slamming violations discussed in the NAL.

###### Contested LOAs 

**1. Saines Complaint**

9 All American asks the Commission to exclude the Saines complaint from
its forfeiture calculation.[^25] All American claims that the record
lacks adequate evidence that the Saines LOA was forged. Noting that the
Commission determined that its "own review of signatures . . .
demonstrates that there is little similarity between the purported
signatures on LOAs and the exemplars provided by the complainants,"[^26]
All American argues that the Federal Rules of Evidence preclude the
Commission from rendering an opinion concerning the authenticity of Ms.
Saines' signature.[^27] All American asserts that under the Federal
Rules of Evidence, non-expert testimony as to handwriting is permissible
only when "based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the
litigation."[^28]

10 All American's contentions do not persuade us to alter our
determination that All American slammed Ms. Saines in violation of the
Act and our rules and orders. The record demonstrates that Ms. Saines
never authorized a PIC change in accordance with our rules and
orders.[^29] As we found in the *NAL*, the Saines LOA bears an incorrect
zip code, as well as a signature that does not resemble Ms. Saines'
signature on her complaint.[^30] The record also includes a sworn
statement from Ms. Saines alleging that "\[t\]he signature on the
\[LOA\] form is a forgery. I did not sign the form. My age and the zip
code written on the form are also incorrect."[^31] Second, All American
concedes that it used the LOA in question in submitting a PIC change for
Ms. Saines. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the record
supports a finding that All American used a forged LOA to effect a
switch of Ms. Saines' long distance service provider, in violation of
section 258 of the Act.

11 We reject All American's claim that the Federal Rules of Evidence bar
us from finding a discrepancy between the purported signatures on the
Saines LOA and the exemplar provided by Ms. Saines. As an initial
matter, the rules cited by All American are inapposite: there is no
issue here concerning the "testimony" of a "non-expert"[^32] about the
authenticity of Ms. Saines' handwriting.[^33] To the extent that All
American is arguing that the Commission reached an improper legal
conclusion concerning the signatures at issue, we disagree. It was
within the Commission's discretion under section 503(b) of the Act to
observe the difference in the signatures submitted as belonging to Ms.
Saines.[^34] Moreover, we note that the Commission made its
determination in the absence of any evidence to counter Ms. Saines'
sworn declaration[^35] that the signature on the LOA a forgery, and that
her age and zip code written on the form are incorrect.[^36]

2.  **Varughese Complaint**

12 In its Response, All American concedes that Mr. Varughese did not
sign the LOA, and that the LOA instead bears the signature of an
individual named "Sara Thomas."[^37] Nevertheless, All American argues
that the Commission should have obtained an allegation of forgery from
Mr. Varughese or an authenticated signature of Sara Thomas in order to
demonstrate that the LOA at issue was in fact forged.[^38]

13 We find that the record contains uncontradicted evidence that All
American switched Mr. Varughese's long distance service provider without
his authorization, in violation of section 258 of the Act and the
Commission's slamming rules and orders. However, we agree that it is
unclear from the record whether All American used a forged or falsified
LOA to effect this unauthorized switch. Accordingly, we will reduce the
forfeiture amount of the Varughese slamming violation from \$80,000 to
\$40,000, the standard forfeiture amount for slamming violations.

**3. Joyce Complaint**

14 All American argues that the Commission should exclude the Joyce
Complaint from its calculation of All American's forfeiture.[^39] All
American contends that Ms. Joyce's declaration does not support the
proposed penalty, [^40] despite Ms. Joyce's contention that she did not
sign the LOA, and that the LOA bears numerous mistakes, including an
incorrect age.[^41] All American also presents evidence from two
handwriting experts who concluded that the signature on the Joyce LOA
was genuine by comparing the signature on the LOA with Ms. Joyce's
complaint and declaration to the Commission.[^42] While this evidence is
not conclusive, for purposes of this proceeding we will not include this
complaint in our forfeiture calculation in light of the conflicting
evidence in the record. Accordingly, we reduce the amount of the
forfeiture by \$80,000.

**C. Appropriateness of Assessed Forfeiture Amount**

15 All American argues that even if it is found liable for a forfeiture,
the Commission's proposed penalty should be substantially reduced. All
American contends that the Commission impermissibly based the proposed
forfeiture amount on the Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement*[^43]
when only three complaints stem from facts that occurred after the
*Forfeiture Policy Statement* was released.[^44] All American asserts
that the *Policy Statement* recommends a standard \$40,000 forfeiture
amount for slamming violations. Moreover, All American argues, the
proposed \$80,000 fine for forgery violations is disproportionate
compared to forfeitures the Commission imposed on other carriers[^45]
who had engaged in egregious slamming conduct.[^46] Finally, All
American contends that its history of compliance and its inability to
pay warrant a reduction of the proposed penalty.[^47]

16 We reject All American's contentions, and conclude that the proposed
penalty is appropriate and fully supported by applicable precedent. The
Commission based its forfeiture on 13 independent slamming complaints
against All American, and rests on a calculation of \$80,000 for each
instance in which All American engaged in slamming by relying on forged
or falsified LOAs. As discussed below, this determination is consistent
with: 1) our discretion under section 503(b) of the Act; 2) the
Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement;* and 3) other Commission
enforcement actions aimed at egregious slamming conduct involving forged
or falsified LOAs.[^48]

17 Contrary to All American's assertion, the *Forfeiture Policy
Statement* does not circumscribe our well-established section 503(b)
authority to assess an \$80,000 forfeiture amount for forgery
complaints. At the time of the violations at issue, section 503(b) of
the Act authorized the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to
\$110,000 for each violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or
order issued under the Act.[^49] When the Commission issued the
*Forfeiture Policy Statement* in 1997, it was merely to provide
guidelines for assessing monetary forfeitures under section 503(b) of
the Act.[^50] Under these guidelines, the Commission established base
forfeiture amounts for a wide range of violations, including a \$40,000
standard forfeiture amount for slamming. Significantly, however, we
retained the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue
forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under our general forfeiture
authority contained in section 503(b) of the Act. Moreover, the
*Forfeiture Policy Statement* specifically provides that the base
forfeiture amount can be increased by "upward adjustment criteria" such
as the egregiousness of the misconduct at issue.[^51] Accordingly, while
All American is correct in asserting that many of the complaints at
issue in the *NAL* stem from facts originating before the effective date
of the *Forfeiture Policy Statement*, All American's argument is of no
legal significance. The *guidelines* in the *Forfeiture Policy
Statement* are just that: an aid to exercising discretionary authority
that the Commission has possessed since section 503(b) was adopted in
1934.

18 Nor do we find merit in All American's claim that the proposed
\$80,000 forfeiture amount is inconsistent with forfeitures we have
imposed on other carriers who have engaged in slamming through the use
of forged or falsified LOAs. First, All American's reference to the *CCN
Revocation Order*[^52] is inapposite. That case involved revocation of
the Fletcher Companies' operating authority *in addition to* the
imposition of monetary penalties, which is not the situation here. We
likewise reject All American's comparisons to other cases adopted prior
to the All American proceeding. The Commission has discretion to decide
in a particular case that violations should result in a higher level of
forfeiture than in the past. In the *All American NAL*, we noted our
prior warnings to carriers that we would take "swift and decisive
enforcement action, including the imposition of substantial monetary
fines, against any carrier found to have engaged in slamming,
particularly the practice of relying on forged LOAs."[^53] When, despite
those prior warnings, we received numerous slamming complaints against
All American that demonstrated a clear pattern of conduct to slam
consumers through the use of forged and falsified LOAs (including a
purported signature from a complainant's deceased husband), we exercised
our discretion to impose forfeitures of \$80,000 for each instance in
which All American had used forged or falsified LOAs to slam the
complainants.[^54] Since the release of the *All American NAL*, we have
imposed similar forfeitures in other proceedings involving egregious
slamming violations.[^55] Indeed, the Commission's subsequent policies
and procedures have consistently reflected a forfeiture amount of
\$80,000 per forged LOA because we continue to find forgeries to be
particularly egregious slamming violations.[^56]

A.  **Assessment Factors for Forfeiture Amount**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **History of Compliance**

19 All American further argues that a reduction in the proposed
forfeiture is warranted because it has a history of compliance before
the Commission.[^57] Even though All American appears not to have been
the subject of other official action by the Commission, the complaints
for which the NAL was issued reflect an egregious pattern of slamming
conduct. When we view this pattern of violations over such a short time
period, we are convinced that it would be inappropriate to reduce the
forfeiture based on All American's asserted "history of compliance."

**2. Ability to Pay**

20 All American last argues that payment of the proposed forfeiture
would "severely impact All American's ability to provide service" and
could cause All American to discontinue its operations.[^58] All
American submits that the proposed forfeiture represents approximately 6
percent of its 1997 gross revenues, and that it suffered a net operating
loss for 1997. Finally, All American notes that due to the problems
leading up to the *NAL*, All American has been under new management
since June 25, 1998. According to All American, new management has made
some changes that have resulted in a cash flow shortage that would
"further impact All American's ability to pay the full amount of the
forfeiture."[^59]

21 We decline to reduce the forfeiture based on All American's
arguments. We have consistently held that an appropriate indicator of a
carrier's ability to pay a forfeiture is its gross revenues.[^60] While
All American states in a footnote that its 1997 gross revenues were
\$18,032,982,[^61] All American fails to provide any supporting
documentation or affidavits to support its claim. We therefore determine
that All American has not met its burden of proof on this issue.[^62]
Nor has All American provided any documentation to support its assertion
that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced in light of its \$2,000
net operating loss for 1997.[^63] The record must contain more than such
unsupported statements in order for the Commission to evaluate the
effect of financial indicators such as a carrier's gross revenues or net
losses.

######### IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

22 Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission\'s
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(4), that All American Telephone Company, Inc.
SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of nine hundred
twenty thousand dollars (\$920,000) for violating Section 258 of the
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders
governing preferred interexchange carrier conversions. Payment shall be
made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's
rules within 30 days from the release of this order.[^64] If the
forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case will be
referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section
504(a) of the Act.

23 **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this Order of Forfeiture
shall be sent by certified United States mail to Mr. Ronald C. Darnell,
All American Telephone, Inc., 9001 Airport Freeway, Suite 570, Fort
Worth, Texas, 76180.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: Section 258 states in pertinent part that "no telecommunications
    carrier shall submit . . . 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.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150. Sections 64.1100 and 64.1150 are
    now codified at section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. 65 FR
    47678, 47690 (2000). Because All American's apparent violations
    occurred prior to November 28, 2000, the effective date of the
    revised rules, sections 64.1100 and 64.1150 were the applicable
    Commission rules in effect during the relevant time period.

[^3]: *Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes
    Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and
    Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers\' Long Distance
    Carriers, First Order on Reconsideration,* FCC 00-135 (rel. May 3,
    2000); *Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes
    Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and
    Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers\' Long Distance
    Carriers, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (*Section 258 Order*), *stayed
    in nonrelevant part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC*, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir.
    May 18, 1999) (*Stay Order*); *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd
    10674 (1997); *Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of
    Consumers' Long Distance Carriers*, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995) (*LOA
    Order*), *stayed in part*, 11 FCC Rcd 856 (1995) (*In-Bound Stay
    Order*); *Policies and Rules concerning Changing Long Distance
    Carriers*, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992) (*PIC Change Order*), *recon.
    denied*, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); *Investigation of Access and
    Divestiture-Related Tariffs*, 101 FCC Rcd 911 (1985) (*Allocation
    Order*), *recon. denied*, 102 FCC2d 503 (1985); *Investigation of
    Access and Divestiture-Related Tariffs*, 101 FCC 2d 935
    (Com.Car.Bur. 1985) (*Waiver Order*), *recon. denied*, 102 FCC 2d
    503 (1985).

[^4]: *See All American Telephone Company, Inc.,* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 15040 (1998) (*All American
    NAL).*

[^5]: *Id*. at 15040.

[^6]: *Id.* at 15048.

[^7]: The Commission has authority pursuant to section 503(b) of the
    Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), to assess a forfeiture penalty against a
    common carrier if the Commission determines that the carrier has
    "willfully or repeatedly" failed to comply with the provisions of
    the Act or with any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
    Commission. For a violation to be willful, it need not be
    intentional. *Southern California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd 4387
    (1991); *see also* *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, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1539 (1998).

[^8]: *All American NAL*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15050.

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: Response at 16-17. All American also erroneously contends that
    the *NAL* did not cite All American for apparent violations of the
    Commission's rules against slamming, but only for relying "on LOAs
    apparently containing forgeries . . . ." *Id.* at 5-6. To the
    contrary, the *NAL* found apparent violations of the Commission's
    slamming rules and orders, as well as the Act. *See All American
    NAL*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15040.

[^11]: Response at 13-16.

[^12]: *Id.* at 10-13.

[^13]: *Id.* at 16-17.

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 258 (stating, in pertinent part, that "\[n\]o
    telecommunications carrier shall submit . . . 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."); *see
    also* *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*, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1539 (1998).

[^15]: *See, e.g.,* *Qwest Communications Int'l, Inc.,* Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 182 (1999).

[^16]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 217.

[^17]: *See, e.g.,* *Amer-I-Net Services Corporation*, Order of
    Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000) (*Amer-I-Net Services Corporation
    Forfeiture Order*).

[^18]: *Id.*

[^19]: Nor do we find merit in All American's suggestion that forged
    LOAs should somehow be more acceptable to the Commission because we
    previously acknowledged that forgeries are an industry-wide problem.
    Response at 7-8. If anything, the fact that falsified and forged
    LOAs are a widespread \-- and well-publicized \-- problem makes them
    even more egregious when they occur.

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b) (emphasis added).

[^21]: *See supra* note 7.

[^22]: The Commission's rules and orders require that a carrier wishing
    to effectuate an authorized change in a consumer's designated
    preferred carrier submit the change order to an executing carrier,
    who is then obligated to make the change absent some indication that
    the request is not legitimate. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150.
    Section 64.1150 specifies the various methods that carriers can use
    to verify consumer requests to change a preferred carrier. For
    example, a carrier may elect to use a letter of agency (LOA) as the
    basis for submitting a carrier change order. Pursuant to section
    64.1150, the LOA must be signed "by the subscriber to the telephone
    line(s) requesting the preferred carrier change." *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    64.1150.

[^23]: *See* *All American NAL*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15042.

[^24]: *Id.* at 15048.

[^25]: Response at 13-16.

[^26]: *All American NAL*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048.

[^27]: Response at 15.

[^28]: *Id.* (citing Fed. R.Evid. 901(b)(2), (3)).

[^29]: *Id.*

[^30]: *All American NAL*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048.

[^31]: *See* Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998).

[^32]: Presumably, All American uses this term to refer to the
    Commission.

[^33]: Moreover, even if the rule cited by All American applies here,
    the Commission has stated that the Federal Rules of Evidence may be
    "relaxed if the ends of justice will be better served by so doing."
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.351.

[^34]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^35]: *See* Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998).

[^36]: *See All American NAL*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048-49.

[^37]: Response at 42.

[^38]: Response at 14.

[^39]: Response at 10.

[^40]: *Id.* at 11. All American claims that Ms. Joyce did not
    "definitively assert" that her signature is a forfeiture, instead
    stating that, "\[t\]o the best of \[her\] recollection," she did not
    sign LOA. *Id.*

[^41]: *See* Joyce Declaration at 1-2.

[^42]: *Id.* at 10-13.

[^43]: *See The 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 (1997), *recon.
    denied*, CC Docket No. 95-6 (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (*Forfeiture Policy
    Statement*). The *Forfeiture Policy Statement* was effective on
    October 14, 1997.

[^44]: Response at 27.

[^45]: *Id.* at 19-26 (citing, for example, the *CCN Revocation Order*,
    13 FCC Rcd 13599 (1998), in which the Commission, in addition to
    revoking the Fletcher Companies' operating authority, imposed
    forfeitures of \$15,000 per slamming complaint plus an additional
    \$5,000 for each instance where Fletcher failed to respond to the
    Commission's notices of informal complaint).

[^46]: Response at 23 (citing *LCI International Worldwide
    Telecommunications,* Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 10
    FCC Rcd 11451 (Com.Car.Bur. 1995)).

[^47]: Response at 34-36.

[^48]: *Forfeiture Policy Statement,* 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.

[^49]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80. The Commission subsequently amended its
    rules to increase the maximum penalties to account for inflation.
    The revised penalties apply to violations that occurred after
    November 13, 2000. *In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of
    the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to
    Reflect Inflation, Order,* FCC-347 (rel. Sept. 19, 2000).

[^50]: *See Forfeiture Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17090.

[^51]: *Id*.

[^52]: *CCN Revocation Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 13599, 13608 n.50 (1998).

[^53]: *All American NAL*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15050.

[^54]: *Id.* at 15051.

[^55]: *See, e.g.,* *BDP NAL*, 14 FCC Rcd at 348 (finding apparent
    liability for a forfeiture of \$80,000 for each unauthorized
    conversion of 30 complainants through deceptive marketing practices,
    for a total forfeiture of \$2,400,000); *Amer-I-Net Services Corp.,*
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118
    (2000)(finding apparent liability for a forfeiture of of \$80,000
    for, *inter alia*, each of 16 forgery complaints, for a total of
    \$1,360,000); *Brittan Communications International Corp.*, Notice
    of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 4852 (2000)
    (finding apparent liability for, *inter alia,* a forfeiture of
    \$80,000 for each of 12 forgery complaints, for a total forfeiture
    of \$1,120,000); *American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation,*
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 00-446 (rel. Dec.
    21, 2000) (finding, *inter alia*, apparent liability for \$80,000
    forfeiture for each of 2 violations resulting from AT&T's reliance
    on forged LOAs); *Vista Group Int'l, Inc.,* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 13814 (1999) (finding apparent
    liability for \$80,000 forfeiture for, *inter alia*, each of seven
    complaints involving deceptive marketing practices, for a total of
    \$1,000,000); *Coleman Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Local Long Distance,
    Inc.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 13786
    (1999)(finding apparent liability for \$80,000 forfeiture for each
    unauthorized conversion of 14 complainants through deceptive
    marketing practices, for a total forfeiure of \$1,120,000); *Qwest
    Communications NAL*, 14 FCC Rcd 182 (1999) (finding apparent
    liability for, *inter alia*, \$80,000 forfeiture for each of 22
    forgery complaints, contributing to a total forfeiture of
    \$2,080,000).

[^56]: *See supra* note 55.

[^57]: Response at 34-35. The Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement*
    provides that a history of overall compliance is one of the factors
    the Commission may take into account in its consideration of
    downward adjustment of a forfeiture. *Forfeiture Policy Statement,*
    12 FCC Rcd at 17116. Ironically, All American previously argued that
    the *Forfeiture Policy Statement* did not apply to the instant
    proceeding. *See* Response at 27.

[^58]: Response at 35-36.

[^59]: *Id.* at 36.

[^60]: *See, e.g.,* *Target Telecom Forfeiture Order*, Order of
    Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 4456, 4464 (Com.Car.Bur. 1998).

[^61]: Response at 36 n.107.

[^62]: *See, e.g., Long Distance Services, Inc.,* Order of Forfeiture,
    13 FCC Rcd 4444, 4452 (Com.Car.Bur. 1998) (*LDS Forfeiture Order*).

[^63]: Response at 36.

[^64]: The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
    drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.
    Reference should be made on the All American Telephone Company,
    Inc.'s check or money order to "NAL/Acct. No. 816EF0008." Such
    remittance must be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance
    Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago,
    Illinois 60673-7482.