******************************************************** 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 ) ) Amer-I-Net Services Corporation ) File No. ENF-98-11 ) Apparent Liability for Forfeiture) NAL/Acct No. 916EF0002 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 26, 1998; Released: October 30, 1998 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we initiate enforcement action against Amer-I-Net Services Corporation (Amer-I-Net). For the reasons set forth below, we find that Amer-I-Net apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as well as Commission rules and orders, by changing the designated preferred interexchange carriers (PICs) for interstate service of eighteen consumers without their authorization. Sixteen of the violations are particularly egregious in this case, because Amer-I-Net, in requesting the local exchange carriers (LECs) to make the PIC changes, relied on Letters of Authorization (LOAs) that appear to contain 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 Amer-I-Net is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) for each of the sixteen violations resulting from forged LOAs and forty thousand dollars ($40,000) for the remaining two slamming violations, for a total forfeiture amount of one million, three hundred and sixty thousand dollars ($1,360,000). 2. Amer-I-Net, a privately held company headquartered in Farmingdale, New Jersey, was incorporated on November 8, 1990, and subsequently started providing long distance telephone service in 35 states. The president of Amer-I-Net, Kenton W. Nice, also serves as the corporation's chief executive officer. Currently, the company employs 20 persons, and is affiliated with two other companies -- Digital Technologies, Inc., a company which installs and services pay phones, and Polar Communications, Inc., a switch-based facility carrier. 3. The facts underlying sixteen of these complaints are so similar as to establish a pattern of conduct by Amer-I-Net to convert the complainants' preferred interexchange carriers without their authorization through the apparent use of falsified or forged LOAs. In each case, the complainant discovered that his or her long distance service had been changed to Amer-I-Net after reviewing a telephone bill and contacting the local exchange carrier. Upon inspection of the signed LOAs purportedly authorizing Amer-I-Net to request the PIC change, the complainants for all sixteen of these complaints allege that the signatures on their respective LOAs are forged. It appears that Amer-I-Net also neglected its obligation to investigate these complaints because their responses fail to address, and certainly provide no explanation for, the complainants' allegations of forgery. The remaining two complaints involve the changing of complainants' preferred IXC without their authorization. The pertinent facts underlying these complaints are set forth below. 4. As an additional measure, we require Amer-I-Net 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 Amer-I-Net promptly to 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 Amer-I-Net's repeated failure to respond fully to Commission Notices of Informal Complaint. 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 5. Our action is based on a joint investigation conducted by the Common Carrier Bureau and the Compliance and Information Bureau, concerning eighteen consumer complaints that alleged slamming by Amer-I-Net (filed with the Commission between December 16, 1997 and May 22, 1998). Each of the complainants contends that Amer-I-Net converted their designated preferred interexchange carriers without their authorization. All but two of the complainants assert this was done through the apparent use of falsified or forged LOAs. The complainants are Ms. Charlotte B. Seeley of Newton, Massachusetts; Mr. Nick Athans of Jacksonville, Florida; Mr. Robert J. Harrold of West Newton, Massachusetts; Mr. Bruce J. Lubin of Hoboken, New Jersey; Mr. Timothy Voss of Lakeland, Florida; Ms. Mary C. Iden of Wisconsin; Mr. Joseph A. Cervone of Glen Rock, New Jersey; Ms. Gail Kislevitz of Ridgewood, New Jersey; Ms. Faye Ruopp of Auburndale, Massachusetts; Mr. Stephen M. Davidson of Newton, Massachusetts; Mr. Gerald Margolis of Glen Rock, New Jersey; Mr. Alan Stern of Charlestown, Massachusetts; Mr. Charles LaFiura of Ho Ho Kus, New Jersey; Mr. Gregory T. Moffatt of Boston, Massachusetts; Ms. Golda M. Kagan of Newton, Massachusetts; Don and Lana Cahill of Naples, Florida; Mr. Paul A. Fisher of Clermont, Florida; and Ms. Leslie A. Zebrowitz of Newton, Massachusetts. A. The Harrold Complaint 6. The informal complaint filed by Mr. Robert J. Harrold of West Newton, Massachusetts, alleges that upon discovering that his long distance service had been switched without his authorization, Mr. Harrold requested from Amer-I-Net a copy of the purported LOA authorizing Amer-I-Net to become his new long distance company. Amer-I-Net promptly faxed Mr. Harrold a copy of the LOA it relied upon to change his long distance service and, after inspecting it, Mr. Harrold determined that the signature on the LOA was a forgery. The LOA also contained inaccurate information such as an incorrect birth date for Mr. Harrold and the wrong zip code for his address. Mr. Harrold "immediately" called Amer-I-Net to inform them that the signature on the LOA was a forgery and filed his informal complaint in which he included a copy of the forged LOA and a sample of his signature. 7. The Common Carrier Bureau's Consumer Protection Branch forwarded the Harrold Complaint to Amer-I-Net along with a Notice of Informal Complaint in accordance with the Commission's rules. In response, Amer-I-Net filed with the Commission a letter containing minimal information about charges it assessed Mr. Harrold's account following the unauthorized PIC change, and the amount of money Amer-I-Net had credited to his account in an apparent attempt to resolve the complaint and terminate the proceedings at the FCC. The only explanation offered by Amer-I-Net for its actions is that it received, from its marketing agent, a written authorization permitting Amer-I-Net to switch Mr. Harrold's long distance telephone service and that it sent Mr. Harrold a confirmation letter verifying the change. Amer-I-Net included a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by Mr. Harrold. Amer-I-Net makes no rebuttal to Mr. Harrold's allegation that his signature was forged on the purported LOA, even though that allegation was made by Mr. Harrold to Amer-I-Net personally and was included in the complaint forwarded to Amer-I-Net by our Consumer Protection Branch. Moreover, nothing in Amer-I-Net's response indicates that it attempted to investigate the forgery; nor did Amer-I-Net explain whether it has any procedures in place to prevent the forging of signatures on its LOAs. B. The Seeley Complaint 8. In a written complaint dated April 21, 1998, Ms. Charlotte B. Seeley alleges that Amer-I-Net converted her preferred interexchange carrier from MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) to Amer-I-Net without her authorization. According to Ms. Seeley, the LOA she obtained from Amer-I-Net and which was used by Amer-I-Net to change her long distance telephone service contains incorrect information about her age and home address. According to the LOA sent to her by Amer-I-Net, for example, Ms. Seeley is 26 years-old. Ms. Seeley informs us, however, that she is actually 64 years-old. Moreover, she states that the signature that Amer-I-Net represented was hers on the purported LOA is a forgery, and she provides a copy of his own signature as evidence that his signature was forged. Ms. Seeley also says that the form incorrectly lists her first name as "Lucie," and that she does not know or has any family members named "Lucie Seeley." 9. In response to Ms. Seeley's complaint, Amer-I-Net filed a standard letter explaining the charges it assessed Ms. Seeley's account following the unauthorized PIC change, and the amount of money Amer-I-Net had credited to her account in an apparent attempt to resolve the complaint and terminate the proceedings at the FCC. As with the Harrold Complaint, Amer-I-Net explains its actions by asserting that it received, from its marketing agent, a written authorization permitting Amer-I-Net to switch Ms. Seeley's long distance telephone service and that it sent Ms. Seeley a confirmation letter verifying the change. Amer-I-Net includes a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by Ms. Seeley. Amer-I-Net does not respond to Ms. Seeley's allegations that the purported LOA contains incorrect age and address information, nor does Amer-I-Net attempt to rebut Ms. Seeley's assertion that the signature on the purported LOA is a forgery. Nor does Amer-I-Net's response indicate that it specifically investigated Ms. Seeley's allegation of forgery. C. The Athans Complaint 10. In a written complaint dated October 30, 1997, Mr. Nick Athans asserts that upon learning that his service had been switched from Sprint to Amer-I-Net without his authorization, he requested and obtained from Amer-I-Net a copy of a purported LOA that Amer-I-Net relied upon to convert his telephone service. Upon receiving the LOA from Amer-I-Net, Mr. Athans ascertained that his signature was forged. Moreover, Mr. Athans alleges that the LOA provided by Amer-I-Net includes an incorrect date of birth. Mr. Athans provides a copy of his signature as evidence that his signature on the LOA was forged. 11. Amer-I-Net's response to the Consumer Protection Branch's Notice of Mr. Athans' complaint follows the same pattern as its responses to the Harrold complaint described above. Amer-I-Net filed a brief letter relating basic information about the charges it had assessed Mr. Athans following the unauthorized PIC change, and the amount of money it had credited to Mr. Athans' account. As an attachment to its letter, Amer-I-Net included a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by Mr. Athans. Once again, Amer-I-Net does not dispute Mr. Athans' 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 Mr. Athans' long distance telephone service. D. The Lubin Complaint 12. The informal complaint filed by Bruce J. Lubin also alleges that Amer-I-Net converted his preferred interexchange carrier from I-Link to Amer-I-Net without his authorization. Upon obtaining from Amer-I-Net a copy of the purported LOA relied upon by Amer-I-Net to convert his service, Mr. Lubin ascertained that it was a forgery. Mr. Lubin asserts that the handwriting used to fill out the LOA is not his and that his birth date as represented on the LOA relied upon by Amer-I-Net is incorrect. 13. In a manner similar to its other responses, Amer-I-Net's response to the Consumer Protection Branch's Notice of Mr. Lubin's complaint consists of a brief letter containing basic information. The letter lists the amount of charges Amer-I-Net assessed Mr. Lubin, and the amount of money it had credited to Mr. Lubin's account. As an attachment to its letter, Amer-I-Net included a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by Mr. Lubin. Amer-I-Net does not dispute Mr. Lubin's assertions that the signature on the purported LOA relied upon by Amer-I-Net to convert his long distance service was a forgery. E. The Remaining Consumer Complaints 14. Twelve of the remaining consumer complaints that are the subject of this NAL are factually similar to the complaints described above and, as discussed in paragraph 3, supra, appear to establish a pattern of conduct by Amer-I-Net to fraudulently change consumers' preferred interexchange carriers through the use of forged LOAs. Each of the complainants has provided statements and evidence that the signature on the respective LOAs relied upon by Amer-I-Net to convert their preferred long distance carrier is a forgery. Amer-I-Net's responses to each of the Consumer Protection Branch Notices forwarding these complaints are similar to those submitted in the matters detailed above, particularly in their failure to rebut specifically complainants' allegations that the respective LOAs were forged. In each case, Amer-I-Net filed letters relating basic information about the charges it had assessed the complainants following the unauthorized PIC changes, and the amounts of money Amer-I-Net had credited to the complainants' accounts. In each case, Amer-I-Net included a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by the complainant. Amer- I-Net 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 Amer-I-Net 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 or even that it specifically investigated complainants' allegations that their respective signatures were forged. 15. The two remaining complaints forming the basis for this NAL involve situations where the complainants' respective presubscribed IXCs were changed without their authorization through the use of LOAs that were not signed by persons authorized to approve such a change. In both instances, the complainants found out that their respective carriers had been changed after receiving a telephone bill and both complainants expressed having difficulties reaching Amer-I-Net after they discovered that their service had been changed. In its responses to the Consumer Protection Branch's Notices, Amer-I-Net provides LOAs that are signed with names that are not an individual authorized to approve a switch of the presubscribed carrier for the respective telephone numbers. Indeed, in both cases, the name of the LOA relied upon by Amer-I-Net did not match the first or last name of the subscriber or anyone located in the same residence or business. Mr. Fisher's LOA, for example, was signed with the name "Mike Walden," while Ms. Zebrowitz's LOA was signed with the name "Caleb McArthur." Mr. Fisher states that he obtained from Amer-I-Net the LOA used by Amer-I-Net to change his long distance service and, that after reviewing that LOA, Mr. Fisher asserts that he does not know anyone named Mike Walden. In Ms. Zebrowitz's case, she lives alone and, therefore, as the sole subscriber to her telephone line, would have been the only person who could have authorized a change in her presubscribed IXC. She also denies knowing anyone named Caleb McArthur. Amer-I-Net provides no explanation for these discrepancies and gives no indication in its responses that it attempted to investigate how these discrepancies came to be. Nor does Amer-I-Net indicate any efforts it made to confirm that the name appearing on the LOA was an individual authorized to approve a switch in service for the telephone number indicated on the LOA, as required by Commission rules. III. DISCUSSION A. Violations Evidenced in the Complaints 16. As demonstrated above, the sixteen consumer complaints involving forgeries, the two complaints alleging that the LOA was not signed by the individual authorized to request a PIC change, and Amer-I-Net's less than thorough responses to these complaints, 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, except for PIC-change requests solicited through telemarketing, IXCs must obtain a signed LOA from an individual authorized to approve the PIC change. Commission rules also prescribe the general form and content of the LOA used to authorize a change in a customer's preferred interexchange carrier, prescribe the minimum information that must be included in the LOAs, 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." 17. The statements and other information provided by the complainants, and the limited responses by Amer-I-Net, represent apparently compelling evidence that Amer-I-Net 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. The facts in the complaints, and Amer-I- Net's own responses, illustrate clearly that Amer-I-Net was on notice as early as January 1998, that consumers had problems with Amer-I-Net's submission of LOAs. As recently as March 1998, however, Amer-I-Net continued to submit forged LOAs in the same manner which had resulted in complaints being filed with Amer-I-Net three months earlier. By failing to provide any evidence or information to counter the complainants' claims that their signatures were forged, or signed by someone other than the "subscriber to the telephone line(s)," we view those claims as admitted by Amer-I-Net. Regarding the forgery complaints, our own review of signatures that have been supplied by the 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 clearly fabricated. A good example is the almost 40 year discrepancy between Ms. Seeley's age and the birth date appearing on her LOA. In each of the twelve cases we find that the complainants have provided credible and compelling evidence that the respective LOAs proffered by Amer-I-Net were, indeed, forged. Therefore, we conclude that Amer-I-Net 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. 18. Regarding the remaining complaints, our review of the complainants' telephone bills or other evidence submitted by the complainants and the LOAs submitted by Amer-I-Net as its authority for changing the complainants' PICs, demonstrate that the LOAs were not signed by an individual authorized to make such a PIC-change request on behalf of the complainants. For example, Amer-I-Net submitted a LOA signed by "Mike Walden" for Paul Fisher's telephone line. Based upon the complaints and Amer-I-Net's responses, it appears that Amer-I-Net obtained all of its LOAs through sweepstakes promotions. Often, when PIC-change requests are solicited using a sweepstakes promotion, the complaints filed with the Commission allege that the complainant was confused as to the nature of the document the complainant signed. To help alleviate that confusion, our rules require that the sole purpose of the LOA be to authorize a change in the consumer's preferred interexchange carrier. To the extent, therefore, that the LOAs used by Amer-I-Net to effectuate a change in the consumers' PIC were also used as contest entry forms, and consequently signed by individuals without authority to request a PIC change, those LOAs are not valid under our rules. The likelihood of consumer confusion, within the context of a sweepstakes promotion, also compels carriers to make every effort to confirm that the person signing the LOA is authorized to make a change in service and is not simply entering a contest. Despite Amer-I-Net's inclusion of language on the LOA implying that the signer has authority to authorize a PIC change, Amer-I-Net apparently did not take sufficient measures to ensure that the individual whose name appeared on the LOA was in fact authorized to request a PIC change for the telephone number at issue. We note that in two of the complaints that are the subject of this NAL, the last name of the person appearing on the LOA is not the same as any individual residing at the address to which the telephone number is assigned. We can only assume (and Amer-I-Net offers no alternative explanation) that Amer-I- Net did not make sufficient efforts to confirm that the person signing the LOA, upon which Amer-I- Net relied, was indeed authorized to approve a PIC change for the complainants' telephone numbers. In context of a sweepstakes promotion, where consumers may mistakenly sign a LOA to enter a sweepstakes, Amer-I-Net could easily have verified the information on the LOA by placing a call to the telephone number to confirm that the individual listed was authorized to approve the PIC change for example. Here, Amer-I-Net offers no explanation for how individuals without any association with the complainants' telephone service were allowed to authorize a change in that service, nor does Amer-I-Net explain the measures it employed to ensure that such a violation of our rules did not occur. In each of the two cases, we find that the complainants have provided credible and compelling evidence that the respective LOAs proffered by Amer-I-Net were signed by an individual unaffiliated with the complainant's telephone service account. Therefore, we conclude that Amer-I-Net 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 19. Amer-I-Net's apparent use of forged LOAs to effect changes in the long distance service of the sixteen consumers described in this NAL and the use of LOAs with unknown names for the remaining two complainants persuades us that a significant forfeiture action is warranted against Amer-I-Net 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. 20. We note that on several occasions, the Commission has 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 through the practice of relying on forged LOAs. The Commission has also emphasized on numerous occasions, and in numerous contexts, that the actions of a carrier's marketing agents do not relieve a carrier of its independent obligation to ensure compliance with the rules. Recently, for example, the Commission issued an NAL assessing forfeitures of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) per violation for use of forged LOAs. In that Order, the Commission found that an eighty thousand dollar ($80,000) forfeiture amount was warranted by the egregiousness of misconduct, the carrier's intent to slam consumers, and the repeated nature of the slamming violations. 21. In the instant case, the evidence before us indicates that Amer-I-Net, despite our previous warnings to IXCs about the use of forged LOAs, has willfully or repeatedly engaged in this fraudulent conduct as part of a pattern to intentionally slam consumers. The clear pattern of conduct by Amer-I-Net, as evidenced by the sixteen forgery violations described above, is comparable to the conduct forming the basis for our assessment of an eighty thousand dollar ($80,000) per violation forfeiture in the recent NAL described above. We emphasize here once again that we consider 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 sixteen complainants' presubscribed carrier through the use of forged LOAs constitute sixteen separate violations. Thus, we find that Amer-I-Net is apparently liable for a forfeiture of one million, two hundred and eighty dollars ($1,280,000) for the unauthorized conversion of the sixteen complainants' long distance service. We also find that Amer-I-Net is apparently liable for an additional forfeiture amount of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) for the two complaints which did not involve forgeries. We are assessing a forty thousand dollar ($40,000) forfeiture amount to each of these complaints because Amer-I-Net failed to meet its obligation under the Commission's rules and orders to confirm that the LOAs were signed by individuals authorized to do so. In the future, we may assess a higher forfeiture amount against those carriers violating our rules requiring that LOAs be signed by the individual authorized to make such a PIC-change request. This NAL places carriers on notice that the Commission will not tolerate this type of violation and that carriers must take the steps necessary to authenticate that the authorized individual's signature appears on the LOA. Amer-I-Net 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. 22. We take this opportunity to remind carriers that they have an obligation to investigate, and must provide reasonable detail when responding to the Commission Notices forwarding consumer complaints about, slamming and other questionable practices. Amer-I-Net, for example, should have provided detailed responses explaining the origin of forged LOAs that are the subject of this NAL, and the measures it has in place to ensure that such forgeries do not take place and that LOAs are signed by the individual with authority to make such a PIC-change request. A carrier will not escape 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 action today should signal 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 rebut adequately allegations that their conduct has violated the Act or our rules or orders. Carriers have an unequivocal obligation to investigate consumer complaints and to provide an explanation of the circumstances surrounding that complaint. 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. 23. Furthermore, our review of Amer-I-Net's inadequate responses indicate a need for the Commission to continue to monitor Amer-I-Net's PIC-change practices. We, therefore, require Amer-I-Net to file with this Commission a compliance plan which shall include procedures designed to promptly identify and address consumer inquiries and concerns about Amer-I-Net's PIC-change practices. The compliance plan shall also detail actions Amer-I-Net will take and procedures it will establish to comply with the Act, and the Commission's rules and orders. The Commission will closely monitor the level and content of consumer complaints to determine whether the establishment of Amer-I-Net's proposed management practices leads to a decrease in unauthorized PIC changes. IV. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERING CLAUSES 24. We have determined that Amer-I-Net apparently violated section 258 of the Act and the Commission's PIC change rules and orders by converting the PICs of the sixteen consumers identified above, on the dates and in the manner described herein. We have further determined that Amer-I-Net is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) for each of the violations involving forgeries and forty thousand dollars ($40,000) for each of the violations that did not involve forgeries, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars ($1,360,000). 25. 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 Amer-I-Net Services Corporation IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of one million, three hundred and sixty thousand dollars ($1,360,000) 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. 26. 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, Amer-I-Net Services Corporation 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. 27. 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 Amer-I-Net 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 Amer-I-Net to promptly identify and address consumer inquiries and concerns about its PIC-change practices. 28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified mail to Kenton W. Nice, President and CEO, Amer-I-Net Services Corporation, 5140 West Hurley Pond Road, Farmingdale, New Jersey 07727. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary