#########  Before the

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

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

) File No. ENF 99-10

Vista Services Corporation )

) NAL/Acct. No. 916EF0005

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture )

**ORDER OF FORFEITURE**

Adopted: October 18, 2000 Released: October 23, 2000

By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a separate
statement.

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1 In this Order, we assess a forfeiture of \$680,000 against Vista Group
International, Inc. ("Vista") for willful or repeated violations of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and implementing
Commission rules and orders. We find that Vista willfully or repeatedly
violated section 258 of the Act by changing the preferred interexchange
carriers designated by fourteen consumers without their authorization (a
practice commonly referred to as "slamming").[^1]

**II. BACKGROUND**

2 The facts and circumstances leading to the issuance of our Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") are fully recited in the NAL
and need not be reiterated at length.[^2] Between September 1, 1998 and
July 30, 1999, the Commission processed hundreds of consumer complaints
regarding Vista. The Commission investigated eighteen of these
complaints. Each of the complainants contended that Vista converted his
or her preferred interexchange carrier ("PIC") without authorization and
provided sworn statements and evidence to that effect.

3 Seven of the complaints forming the basis of the NAL involved
allegations that the complainants' respective PICs were changed without
the complainants' authorization through the use of telemarketers who
misrepresented material facts about Vista's services. These complaints
suggested a pattern of marketing practices designed to disguise the
nature of the sales calls or to prevent consumers from understanding
that Vista was seeking to change their PICs. The remaining eleven
complaints involved Vista's switching consumers whose accounts it had
purchased from ATS, another entity. Vista admits that these purchased
accounts were not verified according to the Commission's rules.

4 In the NAL, based on our review of the facts and circumstances
surrounding these violations, we found that Vista was apparently liable
for a proposed forfeiture of \$80,000 for each of the seven complaints
involving allegations of slamming through misleading sales and
verification practices. In addition, we found that Vista was apparently
liable for a proposed forfeiture of \$40,000 for each of the other
eleven complaints. In total, we proposed a forfeiture of \$1,000,000[^3]
for Vista's apparent violation of section 258 of the Act[^4] and the
Commission's rules and orders.[^5] Vista filed a response to the NAL on
September 30, 1999, challenging the conclusions in the NAL.

III. **DISCUSSION**

5 In its Response to the NAL, Vista does not deny that it submitted
PIC-change orders to the complainants' local exchange carriers,[^6] but
does contest the Commission's finding of apparent liability for willful
or repeated violations of our rules governing PIC-change conversions.
Vista contests liability for each of the eighteen complaints, arguing
that: 1) the Commission has not proved that all of the PIC changes were
unauthorized and unverified; 2) Vista's telemarketers were independent
contractors who allegedly exceeded their authority; 3) alleged deceptive
marketing activities are not within the Commission's jurisdiction; and,
4) for the complaints emanating from the customer list that Vista bought
from another carrier, the Commission does not have enough facts to
determine whether that carrier properly effected the PIC changes, and
Vista has no means to secure that information. Vista also contests the
amount of the proposed forfeiture as excessive, due to the controls it
allegedly instituted to prevent abuses in its telemarketing program, and
Vista's alleged cessation of all its telemarketing activities in
November, 1998, months before the *Vista NAL* was issued*.* We address
Vista's arguments below.

######### A. Slamming Liability Through Misleading Sales and Verification Practices

6 Seven complaints forming the basis of the NAL allege that Vista
telemarketers misrepresented material facts about Vista's services to
consumers who then relied on these misrepresentations in changing their
long distance carrier to Vista. Vista maintains that it did not violate
section 258 of the Act or the Commission's rules with regard to these
seven PIC changes, and also challenges the allegations of five of those
complaints as lacking supporting evidence.[^7] Vista submitted
verification tapes for four of the seven allegedly authorized sales.[^8]
These verification tapes purportedly capture the conversation made
between the third party verifier and the complainant immediately after
the completion of the telemarketing sale[^9] between the complainant and
the Vista representative.[^10] These tapes are evidence, Vista claims,
that the complainants agreed to switch their long-distance service to
Vista.[^11] Further, Vista rejects the evidence the Commission cited in
the NAL, consisting of consumer complaints and sworn declarations made
later in time than the tapes, as insufficient evidence to dispute the
content of the tapes and as "wholly untested."[^12] Vista argues that
the taped conversations directly contradict the declarations, and
therefore Vista must be "afforded an opportunity to test the
complainants' assertions through cross-examination, or the forfeitures
\[for those\] sales must be rescinded."[^13]

7 For purposes of determining Vista's liability, it is clear from the
language of section 258, that we need only find that (1) complainants
did not authorize the change and (2) Vista submitted PIC changes to the
complainants' LECs.[^14] All seven of the complainants sent consumer
complaints to the Commission stating that Vista had switched their PICs
without their authorization, and later confirmed these allegations in
sworn statements.[^15] In the complaints and statements, the consumers
describe with specificity the manner in which Vista misrepresented its
identity. For example, in three of the complaints,[^16] the consumers
consistently describe a telemarketing call in which Vista falsely stated
that it (Vista) was the consumer's LEC and was offering a billing
consolidation service, not a long distance service. In addition, Vista
concedes that it submitted the PIC changes for the complainants.[^17]

8\. To counter the consumers' allegations that they had not authorized a
PIC change but were agreeing to a billing consolidation service, Vista
provided four tapes.[^18] These tapes record the calls between the third
party verifiers and the consumers, in which the consumers allegedly
verified their authorization of Vista as their preferred carrier. We
have closely reviewed the tapes Vista submitted for Porter and
Associates, Inc., JRT & Associates, Sterling Travel and Leasco, Inc. In
these tapes, the verifiers ask the consumers if they agree to switch
their long distance service to Vista. After an affirmative answer, the
verifier asks if the consumers understand that Vista is not affiliated
with their local carrier, to which they all responded affirmatively. The
quality of the recordings is good, demonstrating that the verifiers
speak in a clear, deliberate and easily understood manner. Based on the
specific facts of this case, we accept Vista's argument that the
recordings indicate that the consumers should have understood that they
had authorized Vista to become their long distance carrier and that
Vista was not associated with the consumers' LEC. Accordingly, we reduce
the amount of the forfeiture by \$80,000 for each of these four
complaints, or \$320,000. In so doing, we emphasize that tapes of
verification calls will not always exonerate the entity alleged to be
slamming consumers. If a carrier has engaged in a pattern of
misrepresenting its identity and/or service offering, a subsequent
recording of a "verification" may not overcome the fact that the
consumer did not first authorize the service. Liability must be
determined on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
Because Vista does not submit a tape or any other substantive,
exonerating documentation for the other three complaints, we find, on
the basis of the evidence cited in the NAL, that those complainants did
not authorize Vista to change their PICs.[^19]

9\. With respect to two of these PIC changes, Vista argues that it is
not liable for the conduct of the contractors it used, including the
telemarketing firms and the third party verifiers soliciting and
verifying PIC-change requests on Vista's behalf. In this respect, we
direct Vista to section 217 of the Act,[^20] and the numerous instances
in which the Commission has stated that carriers are responsible for the
conduct of third parties acting on the carrier's behalf, including third
party marketers.[^21] Vista is not relieved of liability for the two
complaints at issue merely because it may have directed the entities to
secure consumer authorizations in accordance with the law. Section 217
of the Act deems "the act, omission or failure of any . . . person
*acting for* or employed by" any carrier to be the act, omission or
failure of that carrier.[^22] This language clearly extends to the
entities "acting for" Vista in securing PIC-change authorizations.
Identical language in another federal statute has been construed to
impose *criminal* liability upon an employer for the acts of its
independent contractor.[^23] To hold that section 258 and our slamming
rules do not include independent contractors would create a gaping
loophole in the requirements of the Act and frustrate legislative
intent. Moreover, Vista's interpretation is contrary to long-established
principles of common law holding statutory duties to be
nondelegable.[^24]

10\. Also, we reject Vista's claim that it did not act willfully because
of the precautions it purportedly took to prevent the telemarketers'
unscrupulous actions. Neither Vista's alleged lack of knowledge or
suspicions regarding its telemarketers' conduct nor the fact that Vista
may have taken steps to prevent fraudulent schemes,[^25] exonerates the
company. It has long been established that the word "willfully," as
employed in section 503(b) of the Act, does not require a demonstration
that Vista knew that it was acting unlawfully.[^26] Section 503(b)
requires only a finding that Vista knew it was doing the acts in
question and that the acts were not accidental.[^27] Furthermore, the
language of section 258 imposes a strict liability standard on the
carrier responsible for submitting an unauthorized change, regardless of
intent.

######### 11. Vista next argues that the Commission does not have jurisdiction, under section 201 of the Act or the Commission's rules, to regulate carriers' marketing devices and sales strategies.[^28] In the NAL, we found not only that Vista was apparently liable for changing consumers' PICs without authorization, but also that Vista was apparently liable for violations of section 201(b) of the Act, which prohibits "unjust and unreasonable" practices by carriers "in connection with" communication service.[^29] Although we specifically declined to propose a forfeiture based on the apparent violation of section 201(b), Vista challenges this finding of apparent liability on jurisdictional grounds. We reject Vista's argument. Under circumstances very similar to those involved here, this Commission recently reiterated that it possessed jurisdiction under section 201(b) for deceptive telemarketing practices by long distance carriers.[^30] The telemarketing practices at issue in the prior action included the carrier representing to consumers that it was affiliated with the consumers' existing interexchange carriers, and was offering a bill consolidation service, then proceeding to switch the customers' PIC. Given this precedent, and the similarity between the conduct at issue in the two actions, we have no difficulty rejecting Vista's jurisdictional argument.

######### B. Liability of the Remaining Eleven Complaints

12\. Finally, in the NAL, we found Vista apparently liable for slamming
11 consumers whose accounts it purchased from ATS. Vista concedes that
it did not properly verify the changes before it switched those
consumers' PICs to Vista.[^31] According to Vista, ATS represented that
it \"had lawfully acquired the customer accounts it sold to
Vista.\"[^32] Therefore, Vista argues, having purchased those \"lawfully
acquired customer accounts,\" it had authority to submit PIC-change
requests switching the consumers to its long distance service. According
to Vista, to the extent ATS had not properly verified the consumers\'
authorization to switch their PICs to ATS, ATS is guilty of slamming and
Vista is the victim of ATS\'s misconduct.[^33] Vista contends that the
Commission must conduct a full hearing to determine if ATS lawfully
acquired its customers before being able to determine if the consumers
were indeed slammed. If so, Vista contends that the Commission must hold
ATS accountable for the slamming.[^34]

13\. Vista\'s arguments misconstrue the NAL, the Act and the
Commission\'s rules and orders. Under section 258 of the Act and the
Commission\'s rules and orders, no carrier can submit a carrier change
request without first verifying that request pursuant to the
Commission\'s rules. Vista does not contend that ATS was an agent
soliciting consumers to switch to Vista\'s service on Vista\'s behalf.
Rather, Vista acknowledges that it purchased consumer accounts from ATS
and subsequently submitted PIC-change requests on behalf of those
consumers to change their service to Vista. Regardless of whether or not
ATS had properly effected a switch to ATS\' service, Vista had the
statutory obligation to submit PIC changes to its own service only after
obtaining authorization from the consumer and verifying that
authorization in accordance with the Commission's rules.

14\. We also reject Vista\'s argument that it should be relieved of its
statutory duty to submit verified PIC-change requests because the
transfer of customer accounts from one carrier to another without
verifying the consumer\'s authorization is \"commonplace in the
industry.\" If carriers have purchased consumer accounts and switched
the customers' PICs without authorization and verification, they have
done so in violation of section 258 and the Commission's rules and
orders. Vista cites no authority to the contrary. Vista also contends
that the Commission did not require waivers of its verification rules in
the situation where carriers acquired the customer base of another
carrier prior to issuance of the *Second Report and Order*.[^35] In that
respect, we are puzzled by Vista's contention. The *Second Report and
Order* did not add the waiver requirement; in fact, there is nothing in
the *Second Report and Order* suggesting that prior to its issuance
carriers were not required to obtain a consumer's authorization and
verification before submitting a PIC-change request. The fact that the
Commission first granted a waiver[^36] of its authorization and
verification requirements after the *Second Report and Order* does not
undercut any of the Commission's prior requirements. Furthermore,
slamming waiver requests are scrutinized to determine if approving them
would be in the public interest and have only been granted when carriers
have agreed to notify consumers of the impending service change and the
consumers' right to choose another carrier if the consumers so
decide.[^37] Here, Vista satisfied none of those requirements.

######### Amount of the Forfeiture

15\. Vista also argues that if the Commission determines that a
forfeiture should be imposed, "a forfeiture penalty of the magnitude the
*Notice* seeks to assess on Vista would seriously jeopardize Vista's
ability to remain in business. . ."[^38] We reject this argument. We
have consistently held that a carrier's gross revenues are the best
indicators of its ability to pay a forfeiture,[^39] and that gross
revenues and current financial status can be shown in an SEC Form 10-Q,
or in an audited or otherwise authenticated income statement of the
company. [^40] Vista has not provided any such probative evidence of its
actual gross revenues, or its current financial status.[^41] We
therefore determine that Vista also has not met its burden of proof on
this issue.

16\. Although Vista further maintains that it took precautions
concerning its efforts to address its unauthorized carrier changes, and
that it stopped its telemarketing services in November 1998,[^42] we
find nothing to mitigate the amount of its forfeiture. We believe that
the precautions that Vista claims to have taken, such as requiring
approved scripts, on-site visits, trouble codes, and internal
safeguards, were not unusual in the industry. Moreover, Vista's
cessation of telemarketing activities in November 1998 came months after
the Consumer Protection Branch of the Common Carrier Bureau had
forwarded hundreds of informal consumer complaints to Vista for its
response.

#########  

######### IV. CONCLUSION

17\. After reviewing the information filed by Vista in its Response, we
find that Vista has failed to identify facts or circumstances to
persuade us that we should rescind the *Vista NAL*. With respect to four
of the PIC changes at issue, Vista has presented evidence, which
persuades us not to issue any forfeiture for those alleged violations.
Thus, we reduce the proposed \$1,000,000 forfeiture penalty to
\$680,000. We note that evidence of further slamming violations could
result in additional enforcement proceedings against Vista.

######### 

######### V. ORDERING CLAUSES

18\. 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 Vista Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to
the United States Government the sum of six hundred and eighty thousand
dollars (\$680,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
258, and the Commission\'s rules and orders governing primary
interexchange carrier conversions, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150.
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.[^43]
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.

19\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of Forfeiture shall
be sent by certified United States mail to Philip A. Bethune, President,
Vista Services Corporation, 821 West Pointe Parkway, Suite 920,
Westlake, Ohio 44145.

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

Magalie Roman Salas

> Secretary

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH**

*Re: Vista Services Corporation, Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, File
No. ENF 99-10.*

I concur in today's decision to impose a significant forfeiture against
Vista Services Corporation based on their violations of our slamming
rules. Although not relevant to the merits of the forfeiture, the Order
does contain dicta asserting jurisdiction over deceptive advertising
practices by long distance carriers.[^44] I write separately to note my
continued concern with the Commission's excursions into advertising
regulation.[^45]

[^1]: Section 258 states 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. In the Notice of Apparent Liability
    that preceded this Order, we also found that Vista apparently
    violated section 201(b) of the Act for its unreasonable marketing
    practices, but declined to assess a forfeiture for those apparent
    violations.

[^2]: *Vista Services Corp.,* Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 13814 (1999) *(Vista NAL)*.

[^3]: *Vista NAL*, 14 FCC Rcd at 13830. 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.

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 258.

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150; *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,* CC Docket No. 94-129, FCC 00-135 (rel.
    May 3, 2000) (*Section 258 Reconsideration Order*); *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
    dissolved,* *MCI WorldCom v. FCC,* No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 27,
    2000); *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) (*Reconsideration Order)*.

[^6]: The Commission's rules and orders require that interexchange
    carriers such as Vista submit authorized and verified PIC-change
    orders to local exchange carriers, which are then obligated to make
    the PIC-change absent some indication that the request is not
    legitimate, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995) *See LOA Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 9560;
    *PIC-Change Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 1038; *Allocation Order*, 101 FCC 2d
    911; *Waiver Order*, 101 FCC 2d 935.

[^7]: The five complaints Vista challenges are: CUM Save N' Share,
    Porter and Associates, Inc., JRT & Associates, Sterling Travel and
    Leasco, Inc. All eighteen complaints were listed in an attachment to
    the original *Vista NAL.*

[^8]: Vista claims that it can verify *five* of the seven complaints,
    but it only submits four verification tapes. For the fifth, CUM Save
    N' Share, Vista found only a tape number, and other information that
    it claims the contractor could not have provided unless a
    verification had been conducted. Response at 17 - 18.

[^9]: Vista admits that it was not privy to the conversations the
    complainants had with the telemarketers, and admits that no tapes
    exist of those conversations. Response at 20.

[^10]: In the *Vista NAL*, the Commission profiled three of the seven
    complaints alleging misrepresentation \-- Sterling Travel, Porter &
    Associates, and Magann Corporation. The NAL also profiled the Import
    Camera Service complaint which involved Vista's purchase of accounts
    from ATS*.* Vista submitted verification tapes for two of the
    profiled complaints, Sterling Travel and Porter & Associates, and
    tapes for two more of the complaints alleging misrepresentation,
    Leasco Properties, Inc. and JRT and Associates.

[^11]: Response at 16 - 17.

[^12]: *Id.* at 19.

[^13]: *Id.* at 21.

[^14]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 258; *Section 258 Order,* 14 FCC Rcd at 1539.
    The *Section 258 Order* reiterates that the statutory language does
    not establish an intent element for a violation of section 258. A
    carrier, therefore, would be liable for slamming if it was
    responsible for an unauthorized change, regardless of whether it was
    done intentionally.

[^15]: *Vista NAL*, 14 FCC Rcd at 13824.

[^16]: The three complaints are from Porter and Associates, Inc.,
    Sterling Travel, and CUM Save N' Share.

[^17]: Response at 16.

[^18]: Vista submitted these tapes with its Response.

[^19]: For a fifth complainant, CUM Save N' Share, Vista reports that it
    could not find a tape, but found only a tape number, and other
    information that it claims the contractor could not have provided
    unless a verification had been conducted. Vista, however, did not
    submit this information. Response at 17 - 18.

[^20]: Section 217 deems the acts or omissions of an agent or other
    person acting for a common carrier to be the acts or omissions of
    the carrier itself. 47 U.S.C. § 217.

[^21]: The Commission has repeatedly held that the failure of a third
    party marketer to obtain proper authorization for a PIC-change does
    not relieve the carrier of its independent obligation to ensure
    compliance with Commission rules. *See, Long Distance Direct, Inc.,*
    Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3297 (2000); *Amer-I-Net Services
    Corporation,* Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000); *Target
    Telecom, Inc.*, Order of Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 4456 (Com.Car.Bur.
    1998) (*Target Telecom Forfeiture Order*); and, *Excel
    Telecommunications, Inc.*, Order of Forfeiture, 11 FCC Rcd 19765
    (Com.Car.Bur. 1997).

[^22]: 47 U.S.C. § 217 (emphasis added).

[^23]: *United States of America v. Corbin Farm Service*, 444 F. Supp.
    510, 525 ( E.D. Cal.), *aff'd on other grounds*, 578 F.2d 259 (9^th^
    Cir. 1978). In that case, the court was charged with the
    construction of section 1361(b)(4) of the Insecticide, Fungicide,
    and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 *et* *seq*.

[^24]: Employers are routinely held liable for breach of statutory
    duties, even where the failings are those of an independent
    contractor, and even where the party seeking redress is other than
    the government. *See* *Restatement* \[*Second\] of Torts* § 409,
    comment b at 371. *See* *also,* *e.g., Alva Steamship Co., Ltd. v.
    City of New York,* 616 F.2d 605, 609 (2d Cir. 1980) (exception to
    the rule of nonliability for the negligence of independent
    contractor is "the negligence of an independent contractor who
    performs a duty imposed by statute on the employer\").

[^25]: Response at 32 -- 36.

[^26]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^27]: *ConQuest Operator Services Corp.*, Order of Forfeiture, 14 FCC
    Rcd 12518, 12525, n.41 (1999); *Target Telecom Forfeiture Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd at 4458, *Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 (1991).

[^28]: Response at 23 -- 28.

[^29]: 47 U.S.C. § 201(b).

[^30]: *Business Discount Plan, Inc*., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd
    14461 (2000), *petition for recon. pending. See also Joint FCC/FTC
    Policy Statement for the Advertising of Dial--Around and Other Long
    Distance Services to Consumers,* 15 FCC Rcd 8654 (2000); *AT&T,* 71
    RR2d 775 (1992); *Telecommunications Research and Action Center and
    Consumer Action v. Central Corp.,* 4 FCC Rcd 2157 (Com. Car. Bur.
    1989).

[^31]: Response at 40 -- 41.

[^32]: *Id*. at 41.

[^33]: *Id.* at 38 -- 43.

[^34]: *Id.* at 43.

[^35]: *Id.* at n. 142.

[^36]: *See Equal Net Corporation Request for Waiver*, 14 FCC Rcd 3975
    (Com. Car. Bur.1999).

[^37]: *Id*.

[^38]: *Id.* at 50.

[^39]: *See, e.g., Target Telecom Forfeiture Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 4464
    ("the use of gross revenues to determine a party's ability to pay is
    reasonable, appropriate, and a useful yardstick in helping to
    analyze a company's financial condition for forfeiture purposes").

[^40]: *Long Distance Direct, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15
    FCC Rcd at 3305-06.

[^41]: Vista submitted general financial information only concerning its
    net losses and decline in revenues.

[^42]: Response at 46 -- 48.

[^43]: 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 Vista Services Corporation's check or
    money order to "*NAL*/Acct. No. 916EF0005." Such remittance must be
    mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal
    Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois
    60673-7482.

[^44]: ¶ 11.

[^45]: See Separate Statements Of Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth
    in: *Business Discount Plan*, FCC 00-239 (rel. July 17, 2000),
    *petition for recon. pending*; *Joint FCC/FTC Policy Statement for
    the Advertising of Dial-Around and Other Long Distance Services to
    Consumers*, 15 FCC Rcd 8654 (2000). See generally, Harold
    Furchtgott-Roth and Bryan Tramont, *Commission on the Verge of a
    Jurisdictional Breakdown: The FCC and its Quest to Regulate
    Advertising*, 8 Comm. Law Conspectus 219 (Winter 2000)\*\*