**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | WC Docket No. 06-64          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Cass County Telephone Company,   | ** |                              |
| Limited Partnership, and         |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| LEC Long Distance, Inc. d/b/a    | *) |                              |
| CassTel Long Distance            | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Transferors,                     | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| FairPoint Communications, Inc.   | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| FairPoint Communications         | *  |                              |
| Missouri, Inc.,                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| ST Long Distance Inc., d/b/a     |    |                              |
| FairPoint Communications Long    | *  |                              |
| Distance                         | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Transferees,                     |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Application for Authorization    | *) |                              |
| Pursuant to Section 214 of the   | ** |                              |
| Communications Act of 1934, as   |    |                              |
| Amended, for Transfer of Control | *  |                              |
| of Blanket Domestic Section 214  | *) |                              |
| Authority and Certain            | ** |                              |
| Telecommunications Assets        |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: July 20, 2006 Released: July 20, 2006**

By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:

I.  **INTRODUCTION**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  In this Order, we grant authority to Cass County Telephone Company,
    Limited Partnership (CassTel) and LEC Long Distance Inc. d/b/a
    CassTel Long Distance (CassTel LD), FairPoint Communications
    Missouri, Inc. (FairPoint Missouri or Operator), FairPoint
    Communications Inc. and ST Long Distance, Inc. d/b/a FairPoint
    Communications Long Distance (FairPoint LD and, with FairPoint
    Missouri and FairPoint Communications Inc., FairPoint)
    (collectively, the Applicants) under section 214 to transfer control
    of certain telecommunications assets from CassTel and CassTel LD to
    FairPoint Missouri and FairPoint LD, subject to Applicants'
    compliance with the conditions discussed herein. Although the
    FairPoint companies acquiring CassTel assets pursuant to this Order
    had no involvement with prior criminal activities of certain CassTel
    principals to commit universal service fraud, we impose conditions
    to ensure that the transferred assets are operated properly going
    forward, consistent with universal service statutory and regulatory
    requirements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
II. **BACKGROUND**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Pursuant to section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended (the Communications Act), the Commission must determine that
    any proposed transfer of control of authorizations will serve the
    public interest before approving any such transfer.[^1] Section
    63.03 of the Commission's rules outlines the procedures for review
    of domestic transfer of control applications.[^2] Domestic section
    214 applications are subject to streamlined treatment, except under
    certain circumstances.[^3]

3.  On March 13, 2006, the Applicants filed an application pursuant to
    section 63.04 of the Commission's rules to transfer certain
    telecommunications assets from CassTel and CassTel LD to FairPoint
    Missouri and FairPoint LD.[^4] The Wireline Competition Bureau
    (Bureau) released a public notice accepting the application for
    streamlined processing on June 1, 2006.[^5] In light of the past
    criminal actions by CassTel's principals,[^6] the Bureau removed the
    application from streamlined processing for further analysis to
    examine whether the proposed transfer would serve the public
    interest.[^7]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. **DISCUSSION**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  *[Transfer of Control.]{.underline}* Consistent with the legal
    standards of section 214, we must determine whether the proposed
    transfer would serve the "public interest," weighing the potential
    public interest harms against the potential public interest
    benefits.[^8] The Communications Act's public interest standard
    requires us to consider both the possible competitive effects of the
    proposed transfers and the broader aims of the Communications Act
    and federal communications policy.[^9] These aims include, among
    other things, preserving and advancing universal service.[^10]

5.  The Bureau finds, upon consideration of the record, that grant of
    the application, subject to compliance with the conditions discussed
    herein, will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
    Specifically, subject to the conditions enumerated below, we grant
    the Applicants authority for: (1) FairPoint Missouri to acquire
    substantially all of the telephone properties and other
    telephone-related assets of CassTel necessary for the provision of
    local exchange services in its exchange areas in Missouri and
    adjoining exchanges in Kansas; and (2) FairPoint LD to acquire
    substantially all of the CassTel LD assets related to the provision
    of interstate long distance. Granting authority to transfer these
    assets serves the public interest because it will ensure the
    continuity of service for CassTel's customers.

6.  *[Conditions to Grant.]{.underline}* Section 254 of the
    Communications Act states as its principal goal that consumers in
    all regions of the nation, including consumers in rural, insular,
    and high-cost areas, have access to affordable telecommunications
    services.[^11] Consistent with section 54.314 of the Commission's
    rules, an eligible rural local exchange carrier (LEC) may only
    receive high-cost universal service support if the state in which
    the carrier is providing service certifies annually to the
    Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)
    that the carrier will use the support in accordance with section
    254(e) of the Communications Act.[^12] On October 15, 2004, the
    Bureau directed USAC to suspend high-cost support payments to
    CassTel, based on the Missouri Public Service Commission (MoPSC)
    September 30, 2004 letter declining to certify that CassTel was
    using its high-cost support in accordance with section 254(e) and
    initiating an investigation into the company's use of universal
    service support.[^13] In January and February 2005, Kenneth
    Matzdorff, who had been President of CassTel, Daniel Martino, who
    had ownership interests in CassTel's parent corporation, and Richard
    Martino, who had ownership interests in CassTel's parent corporation
    and control of CassTel, entered guilty pleas in U.S. District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri (Missouri District Court),
    related to CassTel's fraudulent receipt of overpayments from USAC
    and the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) in the amount
    of \$8.9 million.[^14] Subsequently, CassTel identified \$5,219,156
    of additional money that CassTel owes the universal service fund
    (USF) and NECA, bringing the total owed by CassTel to
    \$14,119,156.[^15]

7.  In light of the past criminal actions by CassTel's principals,
    Kenneth Matzdorff, Daniel Martino, and Richard Martino, we find it
    necessary to the public interest to condition the transfer of
    control of CassTel assets to preserve and advance universal service
    by deterring waste, fraud, and abuse of the USF. Specifically, our
    conditions will provide transparency to ensure that CassTel's assets
    operate consistent with the universal service program rules. In
    addition, once closing of the transfer of control occurs, CassTel
    will cease to operate as a LEC, and it may be more difficult to
    obtain the money necessary to repay the USF (and NECA) fully.
    Therefore, conditioning the transfer on repayment of the additional
    money that CassTel owes protects the USF, which in turn serves the
    public interest. The conditions we adopt here are consistent with
    safeguards that have been applied to USF recipients in other cases
    of USF waste, fraud, and abuse.[^16] Failure to satisfy any of these
    conditions in full will subject CassTel and its successors and
    assigns to all appropriate remedies and enforcement actions.[^17]
    Accordingly, we condition our approval of this transfer of control
    application on the following:

    a.  *Repayment of Monies Owed to USAC and NECA*. In addition to, and
        apart from, the \$8.9 million that the Missouri District Court
        ordered CassTel's principals to pay to reimburse USAC and NECA,
        CassTel has determined that it owes additional monies for
        overpayments received from USAC and from NECA. Specifically,
        CassTel asserts that it owes \$4,260,648 to USAC and \$958,508
        to NECA, for a total of \$5,219,156. Even if USAC's and NECA's
        Petitions for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture are granted
        in accordance with the Missouri District Court's recommended
        disposition of the already-forfeited \$8.9 million,[^18] these
        additional monies are necessary to make USAC and NECA whole as a
        result of CassTel's past misconduct.[^19] Therefore, as a
        condition of this grant, FairPoint shall pay \$4,260,648 to USAC
        and \$958,508 to NECA at, and as a condition to, closing under
        the asset purchase agreement.[^20] The payments are intended to
        be in addition to, and not a replacement for any portion of, the
        \$8.9 million that CassTel's principals have paid pursuant to
        court order, and were calculated with the understanding that
        USAC and NECA will continue to seek recovery of those prior
        payments. We therefore do not require those payments to be made
        again. Imposing such a requirement at this time would in effect
        require payment of the same debt twice, which could jeopardize
        the entire transaction, which, as stated above, we find to be in
        the public interest (subject to the conditions set forth in this
        Order). At the closing, FairPoint shall make the required
        payments to USAC and NECA prior to any payments from FairPoint
        to CassTel. The payments to USAC and NECA shall be made by wire
        transfer as directed by the Bureau. Immediately following tender
        of the payments to USAC and NECA, the Applicants shall submit to
        the Bureau proof of the wire transfers.

    b.  *Annual Audits*. Operator or its successors and assigns shall
        undergo, at its own expense, an annual independent audit to be
        performed for three years after closing of the transfer of
        control approved with this Order. The independent audit shall be
        an attestation engagement and provide an opinion on the
        compliance or non-compliance of Operator or its successors and
        assigns with the conditions set forth herein, and generally with
        the Commission's requirements relating to the USF. Each audit
        shall result in an audit report which, at a minimum, must detail
        this compliance or non-compliance, as well as the steps taken,
        and those that will be taken, to ensure future compliance.
        Operator or its successors and assigns shall provide the
        independent auditor with access to the books, records and
        operations of Operator or its successors and assigns, as the
        auditor deems necessary to fulfill the audit. In addition,
        Operator or its successors and assigns shall provide the
        Commission, on a timely basis, with the opportunity to review
        the audit plans and draft audit reports.[^21] The Commission, at
        its discretion, may approve, reject, or modify the audit plans
        and draft audit reports. The auditor's first report shall cover
        the year commencing on the date of the transfer of control. The
        auditor shall issue its first report, and file it with the
        Commission in this docket, three months after the end of that
        one-year period. Audit reports covering the second and third
        years after the transfer of control shall be due twelve and
        twenty-four months after the due date of the first report.

    c.  *Ownership and Operational Interest*. No individual convicted of
        a felony may have any ownership interest or operational
        involvement in Operator or its successors and assigns.[^22]

    d.  *Recovery of Reimbursements Prohibited*. CassTel and its
        successors and assigns may not recover or attempt to recover any
        of the \$14,119,156[^23] directly or indirectly from
        ratepayers.[^24] To this end, CassTel and its successors and
        assigns shall treat the restitution discussed herein as a
        non-operating expense for all regulatory purposes in the
        accounting period in which it is recorded.[^25] The regulatory
        purposes include ratemaking and the calculation of payments from
        any regulatory support mechanism.

    e.  *Managerial and Financial Controls*. Within 90 days after
        closing of the transfer of control approved herein, Operator or
        its successors and assigns must submit to the Commission, in
        this docket, a plan for the managerial and financial controls
        that Operator or its successors or assigns has in place and/or
        will put in place within six months of closing of the transfer
        of control to prevent any future waste, fraud, or abuse of the
        USF. Such plan shall be subject to review and modification by
        the Commission. Any changes to the plan made within three years
        of the closing of this transfer of control also shall be
        submitted to the Commission in this docket, and subject to the
        Commission's review and modification.

    f.  *Compliance Officer.* Within 60 days after closing of this
        transfer of control, Operator or its successors and assigns
        shall appoint a compliance officer to monitor receipt and use of
        high-cost universal service support, and to design and
        administer a training program for employees on ethics and proper
        practices regarding the USF.[^26] Within 90 days after closing
        of this transfer of control, Operator or its successors and
        assigns shall adopt a Compliance Manual, and shall submit a copy
        of this manual to the Commission in this docket. Personnel of
        Operator or its successors and assigns shall have ready access
        to the Compliance Manual and shall follow the procedures
        contained in it. The Compliance Manual will, among other things,
        describe the universal service rules and requirements as they
        apply to Operator or its successors and assigns, and encourage
        personnel to contact the compliance officer, Legal Department,
        Chief Executive and/or Chief Financial Officer of Operator or
        its successors and assigns with any questions or concerns that
        arise with respect to Commission compliance by Operator or its
        successors and assigns.

8.  Within 30 days from the effective date of this Order, the Applicants
    may file a written request rejecting this grant as made, as provided
    by section 1.110 of the Commission's rules.[^27]

9.  Upon receipt by the Commission of certifications by both the MoPSC
    and the Kansas Corporation Commission that FairPoint Missouri will
    use the high-cost universal service support in accordance with
    section 254(e) of the Communications Act, the Bureau intends to
    direct USAC to provide high-cost universal service support
    prospectively, consistent with such certifications.

10. *[Effective Date]{.underline}*. This Order shall be effective upon
    the later of the release date of this Order or receipt by USAC and
    NECA of the payment of \$5,219,156 as discussed *supra* in paragraph
    7.a.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
IV. **ORDERING** **CLAUSE**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority granted
    by sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 5, 214, and 254 of the Communications Act
    of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 214, and
    254, and pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91,
    0.291, and 63.03 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91,
    0.291, and 63.03, the CassTel and CassTel LD, and FairPoint Missouri
    and FairPoint LD, Application for Authorization Pursuant to Section
    214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, for Transfer of
    Control of Blanket Domestic Section 214 Authority and Certain
    Telecommunications Assets IS GRANTED subject to the conditions set
    forth herein.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Thomas J. Navin

    Chief Wireline Competition Bureau

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(a); *see also Application of WorldCom, Inc. and
    MCI Communications Corporation for Transfer of Control of MCI
    Communications Corporation to WorldCom, Inc.*, CC Docket No. 97-211,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 18025, 18030-32, paras.
    8-10 (1998) (*WorldCom-MCI Order*).

[^2]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.03.

[^3]: *Id.*

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.04; *Application of Cass County Telephone
    Company, Limited Partnership, and LEC Long Distance, Inc. d/b/a
    CassTel Long Distance, Transferors, and FairPoint Communications,
    Inc., FairPoint Communications Missouri, Inc., and ST Long Distance,
    Inc., d/b/a FairPoint Communications Long Distance*, *Transferees,
    Application for Authorization Pursuant to Section 214 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, for Transfer of Control of
    Blanket Domestic Section 214 Authority and Certain
    Telecommunications Assets,* WC Docket No. 06-64, Application (filed
    Mar. 13, 2006).

[^5]: *See* *Domestic Section 214 Application filed for the Acquisition
    of Assets of \[Cass\] County Telephone Company, Limited Partnership
    and LEC Long Distance, Inc. d/b/a CassTel Long Distance by FairPoint
    Communications Missouri, Inc., FairPoint Communications, Inc. and ST
    Long Distance, Inc. d/b/a FairPoint Communications Long Distance*,
    WC Docket No. 06-64, Public Notice, DA 06-1181 (rel. June 1, 2006).
    No comments were filed in response to the Public Notice other than
    by the Applicants.

[^6]: *See infra* para. 6.

[^7]: *See Notice of Removal of Domestic Section 214 Applications from
    Streamlined Treatment*, WC Docket Nos. 06-64 and 06-107, Public
    Notice, DA 06-1346 (rel. June 28, 2006).

[^8]: Where necessary, the Commission may attach conditions to the
    transfer of authorizations or licenses to ensure that the public
    interest is served by the transaction. *WorldCom-MCI Order*, 13 FCC
    Rcd at 18030-32, paras. 9-10 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 214(c));
    *Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC Communications
    Inc., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations
    Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to Sections 214 and
    310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95
    and 101 of the Commission's Rules*, CC Docket No. 98-141, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14712, 14740, para. 52 (1999) (stating
    that the Commission has the authority to condition a transfer of
    lines or licenses to ensure that the transfer meets the public
    interest standard); *Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. v. FCC*, 59 F.3d
    1384, 1389-90 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (upholding FCC imposition of
    proportionate return condition on carrier\'s 214 authorization to
    provide international service. \"\[W\]e see no basis for concluding
    that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously when, in the
    exercise of its judgment of what the public convenience and
    necessity required, it decided to offset that risk \[of the carrier
    using its ability and incentive to discriminate against competing
    domestic carriers\] by imposing a proportionate return
    condition.\").

[^9]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 214(c); *WorldCom-MCI Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    18030-31, para. 9.

[^10]: *See, e.g., WorldCom-MCI Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 18030-31, para. 9;
    47 U.S.C. § 254.

[^11]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254.

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.314; 47 U.S.C. § 254(e).

[^13]: *See* Letter from Jeffrey J. Carlisle, Chief, Wireline
    Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Irene
    Flannery, Vice President, High Cost and Low Income Division, USAC
    (dated Oct. 15, 2004) at Attach., Letter from Robert M. Clayton,
    III, Commissioner, Missouri Public Service Commission, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No.
    96-45 (dated Sept. 30, 2004); Letter from Jeffrey J. Carlisle,
    Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, to Irene Flannery, Vice President, High Cost and Low
    Income Division, USAC (dated Oct. 22, 2004); Letter from Irene
    Flannery, Vice President, High Cost and Low Income Division, USAC,
    to Kenneth Matzdorff, Chairman, CassTel (dated Nov. 5, 2004).

    CassTel timely filed an appeal of the Bureau's decision. CassTel
    Request for Review of Suspension of High Cost Universal Service
    Support Payments (filed Jan. 4, 2005); *see Wireline Competition
    Bureau Seeks Comment on Appeal of Cass County Telephone Company
    Concerning a Decision of the Universal Service Administrator to
    Suspend its High-Cost Universal Service Payments,* CC Docket No.
    96-45, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 2169 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2005).
    CassTel withdrew its request for review on July 18, 2006. Letter
    from James M. Smith, Attorney for CassTel, to Marlene Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-45
    (filed July 18, 2006).

[^14]: *See United States v. Kenneth Matzdorff,* Case No.
    05-00020-CR-W-SOW, Plea Agreement (W.D.Mo. Jan. 18, 2005); *United
    States v. Richard T. Martino,* Case No. 05-00027-01-CR-W-HFS, Plea
    Agreement (W.D.Mo. Feb. 23, 2005); *United States v. Daniel D.
    Martino,* Case No. 05-00027-02-CR-W-HFS, Plea Agreement (W.D.Mo.
    Feb. 23, 2005). As part of these criminal plea agreements, Kenneth
    Matzdorff and Daniel and Richard Martino collectively forfeited
    \$8.9 million to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
    Missouri. *See, e.g., United States v. Daniel D. Martino,* Case No.
    05-00027-02-CR-W-HFS, Judgment in a Criminal Case at 5 (W.D.Mo.
    imposed Nov. 23, 2005 and entered Dec. 2, 2005) (imposing
    restitution in the amount of \$8.9 million, jointly and severally
    upon Daniel Martino, Richard Martino, and Kenneth Matzdorff, and
    ordering \$3.5 million of such restitution to be paid to USAC, and
    \$5.4 million of it to be paid to NECA). USAC and NECA both have
    petitioned for remission of the forfeited funds. *See United States
    v. Daniel Martino,* Case No. 05-00027-02-CR-W-HFS, NECA Petition for
    Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture (W.D.Mo. filed Dec. 23, 2005);
    *United States v. Richard T. Martino and Daniel D. Martino,* Case
    No. 05-00027-CR-W-HFS, USAC Petition for Remission or Mitigation of
    Forfeiture (W.D.Mo. filed Mar. 1, 2006); *United States v. Richard
    Martino and Daniel Martino,* Case No. 03-CR-00304 (CBA), NECA
    Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture (E.D.N.Y. filed
    Mar. 9, 2006); *United States v. Kenneth M. Matzdorff,* Case No.
    05-00020-01-CR-W-SOW, USAC Petition for Remission or Mitigation of
    Forfeiture (W.D.Mo. filed Jun. 22, 2006).

[^15]: *See* Letter from Randall B. Lowe, Counsel for CassTel, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC
    Docket No. 96-45, Attach., "A Description of Events Surrounding Cass
    County Telephone Company, the Remaining Problem and a Proposed
    Solution" at 6 (filed May 4, 2006). Specifically, CassTel owes
    \$7,760,648 to USAC and \$6,358,508 to NECA for fraudulent
    overpayments, for a total of \$14,119,156. *See* Letter from Randall
    B. Lowe, Counsel for CassTel, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-45, Attach.,
    "Computation of Cass County Telephone Company's Problem and
    Solution" (filed May 11, 2006) (CassTel May 11, 2006 Computation).
    While CassTel's filing rounded the figures to the nearest thousand,
    our independent review yielded these more precise figures.

[^16]: *See, e.g., United States v. NextiraOne, LLC,* Docket No.
    4:06-cr-40041-LLP, Plea Agreement (D.S.D. filed and entered Apr. 20,
    2006) (*NextiraOne Plea Agreement*); *United States v. NextiraOne,
    LLC,* Docket No. 4:06-cr-40041-LLP, Judgment (D.S.D. entered Apr.
    25, 2006); *United States v. NEC-Business Network Solutions, Inc.,*
    Docket No. 3:04cr00184CRB, Plea Agreement Exh. A, Special Conditions
    of Probation (N.D.Cal. filed May 27, 2004 and entered Jun. 3, 2004)
    (*NEC/BNS Plea Conditions*).

[^17]: Each failure to satisfy any condition of this Order will
    constitute a separate violation of a Commission order, entitling the
    Commission to exercise any rights or remedies authorized by law
    attendant to the enforcement of a Commission order, including, but
    not limited to, the Commission's forfeiture authority pursuant to
    section 503 of the Communications Act.

[^18]: *See supra* note 14.

[^19]: We note that USAC may complete an audit of CassTel to determine
    the extent of CassTel's compliance with USF program rules. *See
    United States v. Kenneth M. Matzdorff,* Case No.
    05-00020-01-CR-W-SOW, USAC Petition for Remission or Mitigation of
    Forfeiture at 6 (W.D.Mo. filed June 22, 2006). If necessary and
    appropriate, we will address the results of the audit at a future
    date.

[^20]: We reject CassTel's proposal to offset the above-stated amounts
    with certain high-cost support payments withheld since the Bureau
    learned that the MoPSC was investigating possible high-cost support
    fraud at CassTel. *See* CassTel May 11, 2006 Computation. The MoPSC,
    on September 30, 2004, declined to certify that CassTel was using
    its high-cost support in accordance with section 254(e) of the
    Communications Act, and on October 15, 2004, the Bureau directed
    USAC immediately to suspend high-cost support payments to CassTel.
    The Bureau properly stopped high-cost support payments as soon as it
    no longer had assurance that CassTel was using the support in
    accordance with statutory requirements. The MoPSC's letter
    effectively withdrew its prior 2004 certification that CassTel was
    using its high-cost support in accordance with section 254(e).
    CassTel therefore properly did not receive high-cost support
    payments since September 2004. *See supra* para. 6.

[^21]: *Cf. GTE Corporation, Transferor, and Bell Atlantic Corporation,
    Transferee for Consent to Transfer Control of Domestic and
    International Sections 214 and 310 Authorizations and Applications
    to Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing License,* CC Docket
    No. 98-184, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Appendix D, Market-Opening
    Conditions, 15 FCC Rcd 14032, 14327-29 (2000).

[^22]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 308(b) (authorizing the Commission to prescribe
    citizenship, character, and other qualifications for station
    licensees under Title III of the Communications Act); *Policy
    Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing*, 102 FCC
    2d 1179, 1209-10 (1986), *modified* 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990), *recon.
    granted in part*, 6 FCC Rcd 3448 (1991), *modified in part*, 7 FCC
    Rcd 6564 (1992). Although not directly applicable to common
    carriers, the character qualifications standards adopted in the
    broadcast context can provide guidance in the common carrier area as
    well. *See MCI Telecommunications Corporation Petition for
    Revocation of Operating Authority*, Order and Notice of Apparent
    Liability, 3 FCC Rcd 509, 515 n.14 (1988); *see also A.S.D. Answer
    Service, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1 FCC Rcd 753, 754,
    para. 12 (1986) (applying the broadcast character standards in a
    common carrier case). Furthermore, section 312 of the Communications
    Act provides that the Commission may revoke a station license or
    construction permit for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We note that
    Kenneth Matzdorff pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1343. *See*
    47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(6); *United States v. Kenneth Matzdorff,* Case
    No. 05-00020-CR-W-SOW, Motion of the United States for an Order of
    Forfeiture, with Supporting Suggestions (W.D.Mo. May 8, 2006).

[^23]: *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found and
    accompanying text.

[^24]: *Cf. MoPSC Staff v. CassTel,* Case No. TC-2005-0357, Order
    Approving Stipulation and Agreement, at 5-6, 9 (MoPSC May 30, 2006)
    (ordering that no financial penalty imposed on CassTel by the MoPSC
    shall ever be recovered from ratepayers).

[^25]: We do not address in this Order how USAC and NECA shall treat the
    funds received from the restitution.

[^26]: *See NextiraOne Plea Agreement* at para. 17; *see generally
    NEC/BNS Plea Conditions*.

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.110.