********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         Washington, D. C.  20554
                                    
In the Matter of                     )
                                     ) File No. ENF-98-09
All American Telephone Company, Inc. )
                                     ) NAL/Acct. No. 816EF0008)
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture    )

                NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

             Adopted:  July 6, 1998;  Released:  July 6, 1998
   
By the Commission:

I.  INTRODUCTION

   1.                               By this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we initiate
enforcement action against All American Telephone Company, Inc. ("All American").  For the
reasons set forth below, we find that All American apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"), as well as
Commission rules and orders, by changing the preferred interexchange carriers ("PICs") for
interstate service designated by thirteen consumers without their authorization.  The apparent
violations are particularly egregious in this case because All American, in requesting the local
exchange carriers (LECs) to make the PIC-changes, relied on Letters of Authorization ("LOAs")
apparently containing forgeries of the names and signatures of the unsuspecting consumers. 
Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violations, we find that
All American is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of eighty thousand dollars
($80,000) for each of the violations, for a total forfeiture amount of one million, forty thousand
dollars ($1,040,000).

   2.                               As an additional measure, we require All American to file with this Commission
within thirty (30) days of the release of this NAL, a compliance plan detailing the actions it has
taken and the procedures it has established to ensure compliance with Section 258 of the Act and
this Commission's rules and orders relating to PIC changes.  The compliance plan shall set forth
procedures designed to enable All American to promptly identify and address consumer inquiries
and concerns about its PIC-change practices.  We take this action in response to the egregious
and repeated nature of the violations and All American's failure to respond fully to Commission
Notices of Informal Complaint ("Notices").  We note that we are continuing to review
complaints filed against the company and that the Commission may assess additional forfeitures
if appropriate.



                        II. THE CONSUMER COMPLAINTS

   3.                               Our action is based on a joint investigation by the staffs of the Common Carrier
Bureau and the Compliance and Information Bureau of thirteen consumer complaints involving
allegations of slamming by All American that were filed with the Commission between
September 9, 1997, and March 24, 1998.  Each of the complainants contends that All American
converted their preferred interexchange carriers without their authorization through the apparent
use of falsified or forged LOAs.  The complainants are Ms. Susan Share of Anchorage, Alaska;
Mr. Fun-Chi Wang of Bayside, New York; Ms. Caroline DelJuidice of Yonkers, New York; Ms.
Louise Howard, Ms. Marie Saines, and Ms. Martha Lax of Brooklyn, New York; Mr. Mark
Wilson, Ms. Jill Leight, Ms. Linda Conrad, Ms. Maria Cervantes, all of New York, New York;
Ms. Jean Kitay of Pelham, New York; Mr. Thomas Varughese of Commack, New York, and Ms.
Margaret Joyce of Orange City, Florida.  The pertinent facts underlying these complaints are set
forth below.
 
A. The Share Complaint

   4.                               In a written complaint dated October 4, 1997, Ms. Susan Share alleges that All
American converted her preferred interexchange carrier from AT&T Corporation ("AT&T") to
All American without her authorization.  According to Ms. Share, the LOA used by All
American to change her long distance telephone service contains incorrect information about her
age, zip code, and home address.  Moreover, she states that the signature that All American
represented was hers on the purported LOA is a forgery, and she provides a copy of her own
signature as evidence that her signature was forged.

   5.                               The Common Carrier Bureau's Consumer Protection Branch ("CPB") forwarded
the Share Complaint to All American along with a Notice of Informal Complaint ("Notice") in
accordance with the Commission's rules. In response, All American filed with the Commission
a brief letter containing minimal information about charges it had assessed Ms. Share's account
following the unauthorized PIC change, and the amount of money All American had credited to
her account in an apparent attempt to resolve the complaint and terminate proceedings at the
FCC.  The only explanation offered by All American for its actions is that it had received an
LOA "requesting our service in the name of S. Share at the same address as the complainant." 
All American includes a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by Ms. Share.  All
American states that based on this LOA, All American forwarded a PIC-change request for Ms.
Share to NYNEX, Ms. Share's local exchange carrier, for processing.  All American does not
respond to Ms. Share's allegations that the purported LOA contains incorrect age, zip code, and
incomplete address entries, nor does All American attempt to rebut Ms. Share's assertion that the
signature on the purported LOA is a forgery.

B. The Kitay Complaint

   6.                               The complaint filed by Ms. Jean Kitay represents perhaps the most blatant example
of the fraudulent activity engaged in by All American in connection with its PIC-change
practices.  Ms. Kitay's complaint details how, upon learning that her preferred interexchange
carrier had been converted from AT&T to All American without her authorization, she obtained
a copy of the purported LOA that All American relied upon to convert her telephone service. 
Upon receiving the LOA from All American, Ms. Kitay discovered that it contained the forged
signature of her deceased husband.  Ms. Kitay describes the signature on the LOA as a blatant
forgery because her husband had died long before the signature date indicated on the purported
LOA. Ms. Kitay also points out that the purported LOA contains incorrect information about
the age and home address of her husband, noting that, while the purported LOA listed her
husband's age as 36 years, he was well over that age at the time of the time of his death.

   7.                               All American's response to the CPB's Notice of Ms. Kitay's complaint followed
the same pattern as its responses to the Share complaint described above.  All American filed a
brief letter relating basic information about the charges it had assessed Ms. Kitay following the
unauthorized PIC change, and the amount of money it had credited to Ms. Kitay's account.  As
an attachment to its letter, All American includes a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed
by Mr. Kitay.  All American states that, based on this LOA, a PIC-change request was
subsequently forwarded to Bell Atlantic for processing.  Once again, All American does not
dispute Ms. Kitay's assertions that the signature on the purported LOA is a forgery, nor does it
provide any additional information that might shed light on the facts and circumstances
surrounding its apparent use of a forged LOA to effect a change in Ms. Kitay's long distance
telephone service.

C. The Leight Complaint

   8.                               The informal complaint submitted by Ms. Jill Leight similarly asserts that All
American converted her preferred interexchange carrier from MCI to All American without her
authorization.  Ms. Leight states that after receiving a copy of the purported LOA that All
American relied upon to convert her service, determined that the purported LOA was a forgery. 
Ms. Leight points out that the information contained in the purported LOA contains an incorrect
zip code.  More significantly, Ms. Leight states that the purported LOA contains the printed
name and purported signature for "J. Mona," which is identical to the listing for her telephone
number as published in her local telephone directory.  Ms. Leight states, however, that she uses
the name "J. Mona" as a pseudonym to protect her privacy.  According to Ms. Leight, her
legitimate long distance and local phone bills are prepared and provided to her under her actual
name, "Jill Leight," and, Ms. Leight provides copies of the bills as proof of her statement.  Ms.
Leight argues that All American appears to have simply lifted her pseudonym from the telephone
directory and forged a signature for that pseudonym.

   9.                               In a manner similar to its other responses, All American's response to the CPB's
Notice of Ms. Leight's complaint consists of a brief letter containing basic information.  The
letter simply lists the amount of charges All American assessed Ms. Leight, and the amount of
money it had credited to the Ms. Leight's account.  As an attachment to its letter, All American
includes a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by Ms. Leight.  All American states that
based on this LOA, a PIC-change request was subsequently forwarded to Bell Atlantic for
processing.  All American, does not, however dispute Ms. Leight's assertions that it simply
lifted her pseudonym from the telephone directory and forged a signature for that pseudonym on
the purported LOA used to convert her long distance service.

D. The Wilson Complaint

   10.                              In his written complaint, Mr. Mark Wilson alleges that upon learning that All
American had converted his preferred interexchange carrier from Working Assets Long Distance,
Incorporated ("Working Assets") to All American without his authorization, he contacted All
American and obtained a copy of a LOA that All American represented it used as authentication
for the PIC change.  According to Mr. Wilson, the purported LOA includes incorrect
information regarding his zip code and mailing address.  Mr. Wilson states that the purported
LOA contains an address identical to that published in his local telephone directory, which shows
his address as "Manhattan, NY."  Mr. Wilson notes, however, that his actual address is New
York, New York.  Similar to the facts alleged in the Leight complaint, Mr. Wilson states that the
Manhattan address on the purported LOA is evidence that All American simply selected his name
and address from the local telephone directory.  Mr. Wilson also asserts that the signature on
the purported LOA is not his.  He provides a copy of his actual signature to demonstrate that the
signature on the purported LOA is a forgery.

   11.                              All American's response to the CPB's Notice forwarding the complaint contains
minimal information about charges it had assessed Mr. Wilson's account following the
unauthorized PIC change, and the amount of money All American had credited to his account. 
The only explanation offered by All American concerning the circumstances of the PIC-change
is that it had received an LOA "requesting our service in the name of Mr. Wilson at the same
address as the complainant."  All American includes a copy of the purported LOA allegedly
signed by Mr. Wilson.  All American states that based on this LOA, All American forwarded Mr.
Wilson's PIC-change request to NYNEX for processing.  All American does not respond to Mr.
Wilson's allegations that the purported LOA contains incorrect information, nor does All
American attempt to rebut Mr. Wilson's assertion that the signature on the purported LOA is a
forgery.

E. The Remaining Nine Consumer Complaints

   12.                              The remaining nine consumer complaints that are the subject of this NAL are
factually similar to the allegations in the complaints described above, and appear to establish a
pattern of conduct by All American to fraudulently change consumers' preferred interexchange
carriers through the use of forged LOAs.  In each case, the complainant discovered that his or
her long distance service had been changed to All American after reviewing a telephone bill and
contacting the local exchange carrier.  Upon contacting All American, each of the complainants
received from All American copies of signed LOAs purportedly authorizing All American to
request the PIC change.  Each of the complainants has provided statements and evidence that the
signature on the purported LOA is a forgery.  All American's responses to the CPB's Notices
forwarding the complaints are similar to those submitted in the matters detailed above,
particularly in their failure to rebut complainants' allegations that the respective LOAs were
forged.  In each case, All American files brief letters relating basic information about the
charges it had assessed the complainants following the unauthorized PIC changes, and the
amounts of money All American had credited to the complainants' accounts.  In each case, All
American includes a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by the complainant.  All
American states that based on this LOA, a PIC-change request was subsequently forwarded to
the appropriate local exchange carrier for processing.  In no case does All American contest the
complainant's assertion that the signature on the purported LOA is a forgery, nor does it provide
additional information that might illuminate the facts and circumstances surrounding its apparent
use of a forged LOA to effect a change in the complainant's long distance telephone service.



                             III.  DISCUSSION
  
A. Violations Evidenced in the Complaints

   13.                              As demonstrated in the paragraphs above, the thirteen consumer complaints, and
All American's less than thorough responses, establish a disturbing pattern of callous disregard
for the requirements of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules and orders pertaining
to PIC changes.  These rules and orders require that IXCs either obtain a signed LOA or, in the
case of telemarketing solicitations, follow one of the telemarketing verification procedures before
submitting PIC-change requests to LECs on behalf of consumers.  Commission rules also
prescribe the general form and content of the LOA used to authorize a change in a customer's
preferred interexchange carrier. The rules prohibit the potentially deceptive or confusing practice
of combining in the same document the LOA with promotional materials.  The rules also
prescribe the minimum information that must be included in the LOA and require that the LOA
be written in clear and unambiguous language.  Section 258 of the Act affirms and expands the
Commission's authority to deter, punish, and ultimately eliminate slamming by making it
unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to "submit or execute a change in a subscriber's
selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in
accordance with such procedures as the Commission shall prescribe."

   14.                              The statements and other information provided by the complainants, and the
limited responses by All American, represent compelling evidence that All American fraudulently
represented to LECs that it had the requisite authority to request changes in the consumers' long
distance service when it knew it lacked such authority.  By failing to provide any evidence or
information to counter the complainants' claims that their signatures were forged, we view those
claims as admitted by All American.  Our own review of signatures that have been supplied by
complainants demonstrates that there is little similarity between the purported signatures on the
LOAs and the exemplars provided by the complainants, thus rendering it more likely than not
that the signatures are, as the complainants allege, forged.  In several of the complaints, this
finding is supported by evidence that other 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.  In
each of the thirteen cases we find that the complainants have provided credible and compelling
evidence that the respective LOAs proffered by All American were, indeed, forged.  Therefore,
we conclude that All American has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 258 of the
Act and the Commission's rules and orders governing PIC changes in connection with the
unauthorized PIC changes alleged by the complainants.

B. Forfeiture Amount

   15.                              All American's apparent use of forged LOAs to effect changes in the long distance
service of the thirteen consumers described in this NAL persuades us that the a significant
forfeiture action is warranted against All American for willful or repeated violations of Section
258 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders.  Section 503(b) of the Communications
Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to one hundred ten thousand dollars
($110,000) for each violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
Commission under the Act.  In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account
"the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator,
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as
justice may require."  The Commission's forfeiture guidelines currently establish a standard
forfeiture amount of $40,000 for violations of our rules and orders regarding unauthorized
changes of preferred interexchange carriers.  These policies and guidelines include upward
adjustment criteria that warrant a higher forfeiture amount based on our evaluation of the
particular actions and circumstances of the violator.  These include the egregiousness of the
misconduct, ability or inability to pay, whether the violation was intentional, whether substantial
harm resulted from the violations, history of compliance with Commission requirements, whether
the violator realized substantial economic gain from the misconduct, and whether the violation
is repeated or continuous. 

   16.                              We note that in January 1996, the Commission issued five Notices of Apparent
Liability totalling $320,000 against IXCs for their use of forged LOAs to effect PIC changes.
The Commission assessed forfeitures of $40,000 for each of the violations cited in the NALs.
In issuing these Orders, the Commission sternly admonished carriers that it 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. 
The volume of consumer complaints, however, continues to grow.  We need to communicate
successfully the message that slamming will not be tolerated.

   17.                              In the instant case, the evidence before us indicates that All American, despite our
previous warnings to IXCs about the use of forged LOAs, has willfully and repeatedly engaged
in this fraudulent conduct as part of a pattern to intentionally slam consumers.  The clear pattern
of conduct by All American, as evidenced by the 13 violations described above, distinguishes this
case from prior NALs involving forged LOAs.  Moreover, as we have explained in earlier
NALs, we find forgery to be a particularly egregious form of slamming.  We thus find that the
upward adjustment criteria in our forfeiture guidelines that involve egregiousness of misconduct,
intent of the carrier, and the repeated nature of violations are applicable in this case.  Applying
those criteria to the facts of this case, we conclude that it is appropriate to impose a forfeiture
amount that is double the base amount contained in our forfeiture guidelines.  In this regard, the
unauthorized conversions of Share's, Wang's, DelJuidice's, Wilson's, Howard's, Leight's,
Conrad's, Kitay's, Cervantes's, Joyce's, Varughese's, Saines's, and Lax's presubscribed carrier
through the use of forged LOAs constitute thirteen separate violations.  Thus, we find that All
American is apparently liable for a forfeiture of one million, forty thousand dollars ($1,040,000)
for the unauthorized conversion of the thirteen complainants' long distance service.  All
American will have the opportunity to submit evidence and arguments in response to this NAL
to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed.

   18.                              We take this opportunity to remind carriers that they must provide reasonable
detail when responding to the Notices issued by the Consumer Protection Branch forwarding
consumer complaints about slamming and other questionable practices.  Typically, carriers do not
provide a detailed explanation or justification of their actions in responding to slamming
complaints.  All American's responses exemplify this general practice.  We hope our action today
signals to carriers that their unwillingness to provide detailed information in response to
consumer complaints puts them at risk of severe forfeiture penalties, if we determine that they
have failed to adequately rebut allegations that their conduct has violated the Act or our rules or
orders.  Many carriers apparently mistakenly believe, as demonstrated by All American's
responses to the Notices served upon them, that they can escape such enforcement consequences
by simply providing a refund or credit to those consumers who actually discover an unauthorized
change or action and take the time to file complaints with the Commission.  Our practice is to
scrutinize consumer complaints and to take prompt enforcement action, including the imposition
of substantial monetary fines, when the facts indicate that a carrier has failed to take the
necessary steps to ensure that LOAs are valid and duly authorized and to conduct itself in a
manner that promotes the interest and welfare of telecommunications consumers.

   19.                              Furthermore, our review of All American's inadequate responses indicate a need
for the Commission to continue to monitor All American's PIC-change practices.  We, therefore,
require All American to file with this Commission a compliance plan which shall include
procedures designed to promptly identify and address consumer inquiries and concerns about All
American's PIC-change practices.  The compliance plan shall also detail actions All American
has taken and procedures it has established to comply with the Act, and the Commission's rules
and orders.


                   IV.  CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERING CLAUSES

   20.                              We have determined that All American apparently violated Section 258 of the Act
and the Commission's PIC change rules and orders by converting the PICs of the thirteen
consumers identified above, on the dates and in the manner described herein.  We have further
determined that All American is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of eighty thousand
dollars ($80,000) for each of the violations, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of one million
forty thousand dollars ($1,040,000).

   21.                              Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  503(b), Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 
1.80, that All American Telephone, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture in the amount of one million, forty thousand dollars ($1,040,000) for willful and
repeated violations of Section 258 of the Act and the Commission's PIC-change rules and
orders as described in the paragraphs above.

   22.                              IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R.  1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, All American
Telephone, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture OR SHALL FILE a
response showing why the proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced. 

   23.                              IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 218 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 218, that All American SHALL
FILE with the Commission, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, a compliance
plan detailing the actions it has taken and the procedures it has established, to ensure compliance
with Section 258 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders relating to PIC changes.  The
compliance plan shall set forth procedures designed to enable All American to promptly identify
and address consumer inquiries and concerns about its PIC-change practices.

   24.                              IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified mail to Clay Garey, President, All American
Telephone, Inc., 9001 Airport Freeway, Suite 570, Fort Worth, Texas 76180.


                                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                                    Magalie Roman Salas
                                    Secretary