********************************************************    
                         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-98-10
Brittan Communications International Corp.)
                                )  NAL/Acct. No. 916EF001)
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture)

           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

     Adopted:  October 29, 1998;  Released:  October 29, 1998

By the Commission:
                         I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   By this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we initiate
enforcement action against Brittan Communications International Corporation (Brittan).  For the
reasons set forth below, we find that Brittan apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section
258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), as well as Commission rules
and orders, by changing the designated preferred interexchange carriers (PICs) of sixteen
consumers without their authorization.  For twelve of the complaints, the violations are
particularly egregious because Brittan, in requesting the local exchange carriers (LECs) to make
the PIC changes, relied on Letters of Agency (LOAs) that appear to contain forgeries of the
signatures of the unsuspecting consumers.  In the remaining four complaints, Brittan submitted
PIC-change requests based upon LOAs signed by individuals lacking the authority to approve
such a PIC change.  Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
violations, we find that Brittan is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of eighty
thousand dollars ($80,000) for the twelve forgery violations and forty thousand dollars ($40,000)
for the four remaining violations, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of one million, one
hundred twenty thousand dollars ($1,120,000).

     2.   Brittan, a privately held company headquartered in Houston, Texas, was
incorporated in November of 1994 and began business operations as a long distance reseller in
March of 1995.  The president of Brittan, Jim G. Edwards, also serves as the corporation's chief
executive officer.  Currently, the company employs 150 persons, and reports projected annual
sales for 1998 in excess of forty eight million dollars ($48,000,000).

     3.   Twelve of the consumer complaints supporting this NAL establish a clear pattern
of conduct by Brittan to change consumers' long distance service based upon the submission of
forged LOAs.  Each of these complainants initially discovered that their long distance service
had been changed to Brittan after reviewing a telephone bill or receiving a phone solicitation
from another long distance company.  At that time, each complainant contacted the local
exchange carrier and Brittan to determine the circumstances of their PIC change.  Although each
complainant requested from Brittan a copy of the LOA they had purportedly signed to change
their PIC service; only a few complainants were successful in obtaining those LOAs from
Brittan.  Despite being confronted with repeated evidence of forgeries, Brittan either does not
contest the consumers' assertions that the signatures on the purported LOAs are forged, or Brittan
fails to provide information that might explain its apparent use of a forged LOA to change the
consumer's long distance telephone service.  The remaining complaints also demonstrate
Brittan's practice of submitting PIC-change requests to LECs without ensuring that the PIC-
change requests were in fact duly authorized by the consumer with authority to approve such a
change in accordance with our rules.  Each of these four complaints stems from the unauthorized
conversion of the complainant's preferred interexchange carrier using LOAs signed by
individuals unauthorized to make changes to the phone service at issue in the complaint.

     4.   As an additional measure, we require Brittan 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 Brittan 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 Brittan's repeated 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

     5.   Our action is based on a joint investigation conducted by the Common Carrier
Bureau and the Compliance and Information Bureau, concerning sixteen consumer complaints
filed with the Commission between January 23, 1998, and June 30, 1998, that alleged slamming
by Brittan.  Each of the complainants contends that Brittan converted their preferred
interexchange carriers without their authorization through the apparent use of either forged LOAs
or LOAs signed by individuals unaffiliated with the complainant's telephone service account. 
The complainants are Mr. Thomas W. Johnson of Cheyenne, Wyoming; Mr. Robin Gupta of
Edison, New Jersey; Ms. Jacqueline Donnelly of Monmouth, New Jersey; Mr. Keith Cheney of
Lumberton, Texas; Ms. Marea Kettler of Denver, Colorado; Mr. Robert Landstra of Milford,
New Jersey; Ms. Elsa Nadal of Miami, Florida; Mr. Gerald Pflug of West Keansburg, New
Jersey; Ms. Sharleen Sanford of Dallas, Texas; Ms. Yvonne Randall of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Mr. Jeffrey Matchen of Plantation, Florida; Ms. Jan Mednick of Scranton,
Arizona; Ms. Linda Ruiz of Miami, Florida; Mr. William P. Kelly of Arvada, Colorado; Ms.
Rebecca F. Torres of San Antonio, Texas and Ms. Betty Fields of North Wales, Pennsylvania. 
The pertinent facts underlying these complaints are set forth below.

A.   The Johnson Complaint

     6.   In a written complaint dated January 18, 1998, Thomas Johnson alleges that
Brittan converted his preferred interexchange carrier from AT&T, Incorporated (AT&T) to
Brittan without his authorization.  According to Mr. Johnson, he requested and obtained from
Brittan a copy of the LOA Brittan claims to have relied upon to convert his long distance
service.  Upon reviewing the LOA received from Brittan, Mr. Johnson discovered that the
purported LOA used by Brittan to change his long distance telephone service was a forgery.  As
evidence that the signature on the purported LOA is a forgery of his name, Mr. Johnson provides
the Commission with a copy of his own signature and a copy of his driver's license.  Our own
review of the LOA and Mr. Johnson's complaint reveals that the two signatures appear
different.

     7.   The Common Carrier Bureau's Consumer Protection Branch (CPB) forwarded the
Johnson Complaint to Brittan along with a Notice of Informal Complaint (Notice) in accordance
with the Commission's rules.  In response to the Notice, Brittan filed with the Commission a
letter containing a chronological detail of charges it had assessed Mr. Johnson's account
following the unauthorized PIC change, and the amount of money Brittan had credited to his
account in an apparent attempt to resolve the complaint and terminate proceedings at the FCC. 
The only explanation offered by Brittan for its actions is that it had received a "letter of agency
completed by a Thomas W. Johnson of 1747 Newton Dr.., Cheyenne, WY 82001 in November
of 1997." Brittan included a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by Mr. Johnson. 
Brittan's response does not rebut Mr. Johnson's allegation that the LOA was forged, fails to
provide any information regarding the circumstances of how the LOA was obtained, nor does it
describe Brittan's efforts to confirm the LOA's authenticity.

B.   The Gupta Complaint

     8.   The informal complaint submitted by Mr. Robin Gupta alleges that Brittan
converted his preferred interexchange carrier from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Brittan
without his authorization.  Mr. Gupta's complaint contends that, upon determining that Brittan
had converted his long distance service, he contacted Brittan to obtain a copy of the LOA that
Brittan claimed it used as authorization for the PIC change.  According to Mr. Gupta, the
purported LOA provided to him by Brittan is "very obviously a fake" and contains an incorrect
zip code.  Mr. Gupta has provided a copy of his actual signature to illustrate that the signature
on the purported LOA is a forgery.  Our own review of the LOA and Mr. Gupta's complaint
reveals that the two signatures appear different.

     9.   Brittan's response to the CPB's Notice of Mr. Gupta's complaint, similar to its
other responses to CPB Notices, consists of a brief letter containing basic information about the
LOA used to authorize a change to Mr. Gupta's PIC.  The letter also lists the amount of charges
Brittan assessed Mr. Gupta, and the amount of money it had credited to Mr. Gupta's account. 
As an attachment to its letter, Brittan included a copy of the LOA allegedly signed by Mr. Gupta. 
Again, the only explanation offered by Brittan for its actions is that it had received a "letter of
agency completed by a Robin Gupta at 520 Cinder Road, Edison NJ 08818 in December of
1997."  Brittan does not, however, dispute Mr. Gupta's assertions that the purported LOA used
to convert his long distance service was a forgery.

C.   The Donnelly Complaint

     10.  The complaint filed by Ms. Jacqueline Donnelly represents a flagrant example of
the apparent fraudulent PIC-change activity engaged in by Brittan.  Ms. Donnelly's complaint
details how, upon learning that her preferred interexchange carrier had been converted from
AT&T to Brittan without her authorization, she attempted to resolve the problem through a
telephone call to Brittan.  As a result of the call, she obtained a copy of the LOA that Brittan
claims to have relied upon to convert her telephone service.  Ms. Donnelly describes the
signature on the LOA as a forgery and states that the LOA contains inaccuracies including an
incorrect city, zip code, and the incorrect spelling of her own name.  Ms. Donnelly also points
out that during her initial phone conversation with Brittan representatives, she learned that the
LOA was allegedly obtained during a sales promotion for a Ford Mustang at a shopping mall in
Woodbridge, Pennsylvania.  Ms. Donnelly asserts that she has never been to Woodbridge,
Pennsylvania.


     11.  Brittan's response to the CPB's Notice of Ms. Donnelly's complaint followed the
same pattern as its responses to the other complaints described above.  Brittan filed a letter
providing a chronological account of charges it had assessed Ms. Donnelly's account following
the unauthorized PIC change, and the amount of money Brittan had credited to her account in an
apparent attempt to resolve the complaint and terminate proceedings at the FCC.  The sole
explanation offered by Brittan for its actions is that it had received a "letter of agency completed
by a Jackie Donnelly of 9 Vineyard Lane, S. Brunswick, NJ 08879 in December of 1997." As
an attachment to its letter, Brittan included a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by Ms.
Donnelly.  Once again, Brittan does not dispute Ms. Donnelly'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. Donnelly's long distance telephone service.

D.   The Cheney Complaint

     12.  The complaint filed by Mr. Keith Cheney is apparently another example of
Brittan's apparent fraudulent PIC-change practices.  Mr. Cheney's complaint describes how, upon
discovering that his preferred interexchange carrier had been converted from AT&T to Brittan
without his authorization, he contacted Brittan in an attempt to resolve the problem.  Despite
telephone and written requests made by Mr. Cheney to Brittan, Brittan never supplied him with a
copy of the LOA Brittan claimed to rely on to switch his service.  Moreover, in a signed
declaration submitted to the Commission, Mr. Cheney states that he was told by the Brittan
representative that the LOA was allegedly obtained during a sales promotion for a Ford Mustang
in Greens Point, Texas.  Mr. Cheney states in his declaration that he did not enter a contest to
win a Mustang, nor has he ever been to Greens Point, Texas.  Subsequently, after a direct
request in a CPB Notice, Brittan submitted to the Commission a copy of the LOA it claimed to
have relied upon to convert Mr. Cheney's telephone service.  The Commission provided Mr.
Cheney with a copy of the purported LOA.  Mr. Cheney states in his declaration that the
signature on this purported LOA is a forgery and provides a sample of his signature to verify his
assertion.

     13.  Brittan's response to the CPB's Notice of Mr. Cheney's complaint followed the
identical pattern as its responses to the other complaints described above.  Brittan filed a letter
providing a chronological account of charges it had assessed Mr. Cheney's account following the
unauthorized PIC change, and the amount of money Brittan had credited to his account in an
apparent attempt to resolve the complaint and terminate proceedings at the FCC.  The sole
explanation offered by Brittan for its actions is that it had received a "letter of agency completed
by a Keith D. Cheney of P.O. Box 8113, Lumberton, TX in November of 1997." As an
attachment to its letter, Brittan included a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by Mr.
Cheney.  In a manner similar to its other responses to consumer complaints, Brittan does not
dispute Mr. Cheney'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 Mr. Cheney's long distance
telephone service.

E.   The Ruiz Complaint

     14.  The informal complaint submitted by Ms. Linda Ruiz alleges that Brittan
converted her preferred interexchange carrier from AT&T to Brittan without her authorization. 
Ms. Ruiz's complaint contends that, upon determining that Brittan had converted her long
distance service, she contacted Brittan via telephone to inquire under what authority Brittan had
changed her preferred long distance service. According to Ms. Ruiz, Brittan advised her that
"someone by the name of Louis [sic] Hogan authorized this change" to her PIC.  Ms. Ruiz
states that she does not know anyone by that name and that the name does not appear anywhere
on her bill.  Our own review of the LOA and Ms. Ruiz's complaint reveals that Ms. Ruiz's
phone bill is in her name only and that the LOA Brittan submitted as its basis for authorizing the
change in Ms. Ruiz's PIC is signed by Lewis Hogan.

     15.  Brittan's response to the CPB's Notice of Ms. Ruiz's complaint, similar to its
other responses to CPB Notices, consists of a brief letter containing basic information.  The letter
simply lists the amount of charges Brittan assessed Ms. Ruiz, and the amount of money it had
credited to Ms. Ruiz's account.  As an attachment to its letter, Brittan included a copy of the
purported LOA signed by Lewis Hogan.  Brittan, does not, however, dispute Ms. Ruiz's
assertions that the purported LOA used to convert her long distance service was signed by an
individual unaffiliated with her telephone service account, and therefore, without authority to
approve such a change.  Brittan, moreover, does not offer any information regarding its efforts
to determine whether "Lewis Hogan" was authorized to change the PIC for Ms. Ruiz's telephone
line.

F.   The Remaining Consumer Complaints

     16.  The remaining 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
fraudulent pattern of conduct by Brittan to change consumers' preferred interexchange carriers
through the use of forged or otherwise unauthorized LOAs.  In each case, the complainant
discovered that his or her long distance service had been changed to Brittan after reviewing a
telephone bill or receiving a phone solicitation from another long distance company and
contacting their local exchange carrier.  Each complainant attempted to contact Brittan, either by
telephone or in writing, to request a copy of the LOA.  A number of the complainants were
unsuccessful in obtaining signed LOAs purportedly authorizing Brittan to request the PIC
change.  In these cases, the Commission provided the complainants with a copy of a LOA
provided by Brittan to the Commission in response to our requests.  Twelve of the complainants
have provided statements and evidence that the signature on the purported LOA supplied by
Brittan as its authority for submitting a PIC-change request on behalf of the complainants is a
forgery.  The remaining complainants have provided statements and evidence that the signature
on the LOA provided by Brittan as authority to switch the complainants' PIC is not the signature
of the person with authority to make such a request.  Rather, the four remaining complainants
contend that the alleged signatories are unauthorized to approve PIC changes for their telephone
lines.

     17.  Brittan's responses to 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 or signed by an individual unaffiliated with the
complainant's telephone service.  In fifteen of the sixteen cases, Brittan filed brief letters
relating basic information about the charges it had assessed the complainants following the
unauthorized PIC changes, and the amounts of money Brittan had credited to the complainants'
accounts.  In each case, Brittan included a copy of the purported LOA allegedly signed by the
complainant.  Brittan states that based on the respective LOA, a PIC-change request was
processed and it began providing long distance service.  Regarding those complainants
contending that the LOAs they received from Brittan contained forged signatures, in no case
does Brittan contest the complainant's assertion that the signature on the purported LOA is a
forgery, nor does it provide additional information that might explain its apparent use of a forged
LOA to effect a change in the complainant's long distance telephone service.  Brittan also
provides no explanation for why a PIC-change request would have been submitted on the basis
of a LOA signed by an individual unaffiliated with the complainants' phone service and clearly
without authority to approve such a change.  Brittan further fails to provide any information
regarding its efforts, in the context of a sweepstakes promotion, to determine if the signatory to a
LOA is authorized to approve a PIC-change.


                         III.  DISCUSSION

A.   Violations Evidenced in the Complaints

     18.  As demonstrated above, the sixteen consumer complaints, and Brittan's less than
thorough responses, appear to establish a disturbing pattern of willful 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 obtain a signed LOA from an individual
authorized to approve a change in the presubscribed carrier for the consumer's telephone line. 
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 minimum information that must be
included in the LOA, and require that the LOA be written in clear and unambiguous language. 
The Commission's rules establish that the LOA must be signed by someone with authority to
make a PIC-change request, the "subscriber to the telephone line(s) requesting the primary
interexchange carrier change."  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."

     19.  The statements and other information provided by the complainants, and the
limited responses by Brittan, represent apparently compelling evidence that Brittan 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 Brittan's
own responses, illustrate clearly that Brittan was on notice as early as January 1998, that
consumers had problems with Brittan's submission of LOAs.  As recently as May 1998,
however, Brittan continued to submit forged LOAs in the same manner which had resulted in
complaints being filed with Brittan seven 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 Brittan.  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.   In each of the twelve cases we find that the complainants have
provided credible and compelling evidence that the respective LOAs proffered by Brittan were,
indeed, forged.  Therefore, we conclude that Brittan 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.

     20.  Regarding the remaining complaints, our review of the complainants' telephone
bills or other evidence submitted by the complainants and the LOAs submitted by Brittan 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, Brittan submitted a LOA signed by "Lewis Hogan" for Linda Ruiz's telephone line. 
Based upon the complaints and Brittan's responses, it appears that Brittan obtained certain 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
Brittan 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.

     21.  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 Brittan's
inclusion of language on the LOA regarding the signer's authority to authorize a PIC change,
Brittan apparently did not take sufficient steps 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 four 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 Brittan offers no alternative
explanation) that Brittan did not make sufficient efforts to confirm that the person signing the
LOA, upon which Brittan relied, was indeed authorized to approve a PIC change for the
complainants' telephone numbers.  In the context of a sweepstakes promotion, where consumers
may mistakenly sign a LOA to enter a sweepstakes, Brittan 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, Brittan 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 Brittan explain the measures it employed
to ensure that such a violation of our rules did not occur.  In each of the four cases, we find that
the complainants have provided credible and compelling evidence that the respective LOAs
proffered by Brittan were signed by an individual unaffiliated with the complainant's telephone
service account.  Therefore, we conclude that Brittan 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

     22.  Brittan's apparent use of forged LOAs to effect changes in the long distance
service of twelve consumers described in this NAL, and the use of LOAs signed by someone
without authority to effectuate a change in four of the complainants' service, persuades us that a
significant forfeiture action is warranted against Brittan 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,
however, 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. 

     23.  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
the practice of relying on forged LOAs.  More recently, the Commission has issued an NAL
assessing forfeitures at $80,000 per violation for the use of forged LOAs.  In that Order, the
Commission found that the higher forfeiture amount was warranted by the egregiousness of
misconduct, the carrier's intent to slam consumers, and the repeated nature of the slamming
violations.

     24.  In the instant case, the evidence before us indicates that Brittan, 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.  Moreover, as we
have explained in earlier NALs, we find forgery to be a particularly egregious form of
slamming.  In particular, we emphasize that the level of slamming complaints received by the
Commission has continued to grow, unabated by our previous enforcement actions. 
Accordingly, we find that stronger and more aggressive penalties are necessary to address this
consumer fraud.  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 for those PIC-change requests based on forged LOAs. 
This determination is consistent with the holding in our most recent NAL which involved
conduct comparable to that alleged herein.  In this regard, the unauthorized conversions of
Johnson's, Gupta's, Donnelly's, Cheney's, Kettler's, Landstra's, Nadal's, Pflug's, Sanford's,
Randall's, Matchen's, and Mednick's presubscribed carrier through the use of forged LOAs
constitute twelve separate violations.  We propose to assess a forfeiture of eighty thousand
dollars ($80,000) per violation.  We will apply the forty thousand dollar ($40,000) base
slamming forfeiture amount for each of the remaining four violations.  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.   Thus, we find that Brittan is apparently liable for a forfeiture of one million, one
hundred twenty thousand dollars ($1,120,000) for the unauthorized conversion of the sixteen
complainants' long distance service.  Brittan 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.

     25.  We are also concerned with Brittan's apparent practice of requiring a signed
request from the consumer before releasing a copy of the LOA, purportedly signed by the
consumer, to authorize a change.  We believe this practice exposes the consumer to a risk of
fraud, as well as unnecessary effort and delay, and we can discern no legitimate business purpose
for it.  Should Brittan release a copy of the LOA to the consumer and the consumer claims that
the signature on the LOA is not his/hers, Brittan may, at that time, request proof of their
signature.  Accordingly, we find the requirement that a subscriber submit a signed, written
request to obtain a LOA relied upon by the carrier to convert that subscriber's service to be an
unreasonable practice.


     26.  We take this opportunity to remind carriers that they must provide reasonable
detail when responding to the Notices issued by the Commission forwarding consumer
complaints about, slamming and other questionable practices.  Brittan's responses exemplify an
unacceptable practice of failing to provide a detailed explanation or justification of its actions in
responding to slamming complaints.  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 will place them at risk of severe forfeiture penalties if we determine that
they have failed adequately to rebut allegations that their conduct has violated the Act, or our
rules or orders, or have otherwise failed to demonstrate that they are taking corrective action
once placed on notice by consumers that a problem may exist.  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.

     27.  Finally, our review of Brittan's inadequate responses indicate a need for the
Commission to continue to monitor Brittan's PIC-change practices.  We, therefore, require
Brittan to file with this Commission a compliance plan which shall include procedures designed
to promptly identify and address consumer inquiries and concerns about Brittan's PIC-change
practices.  The compliance plan shall also detail actions Brittan 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 Brittan's proposed management practices leads to a decrease in unauthorized
PIC changes.

              IV.  CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERING CLAUSES

     28.  We have determined that Brittan 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 Brittan is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000)
for each of the twelve 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, one hundred twenty thousand dollars ($1,120,000).

     29.  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 Brittan Communications International Corporation IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of one million, one hundred twenty thousand
dollars ($1,120,000) for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the
Commission's PIC-change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above.

     30.  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, Brittan
Communications International 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.

     31.  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 Brittan 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 Brittan to promptly identify and
address consumer inquiries and concerns about its PIC-change practices.

     32.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified mail to Jim G. Edwards, President, Brittan
Communications International Corporation, 600 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 500, Houston, Texas
77002.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Magalie Roman Salas
                         Secretary