Click here for Microsoft Word Version
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
SBC Communications Inc. ) File No. EB-00-IH-0432
Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200132080011
ORDER OF FORFEITURE
Adopted: March 14, 2001 Released: March 15, 2001
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
In this Order, we find that SBC Communications, Inc. (``SBC'')
willfully and repeatedly violated certain of the conditions
imposed when the Commission approved the merger application of
Ameritech Corp. (``Ameritech'') and SBC.1 Based on the facts and
circumstances before us and after considering SBC's response to
our Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') in this matter, we
conclude that SBC is liable for a forfeiture of eighty eight
thousand dollars ($88,000.00).
In the NAL,2 we found that, in seven of its in-region states and
for a period of up to 13 months, it appeared that SBC willfully
or repeatedly failed to report certain performance data in
accordance with the published Business Rules3 adopted in the
Carrier-to-Carrier Performance Plan4 that the Commission directed
SBC to undertake as part of the merger conditions adopted in the
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order.5 We based our findings in the NAL
on the underlying data in SBC's monthly filings with the
Commission, the deficiencies in those filings noted in the
independent audit report6 regarding SBC's compliance with the
merger conditions, and the statements made by SBC in its
Assertion on Compliance7 accompanying the audit report. Based on
our review of the facts, circumstances, and policy implications
surrounding these apparent violations, we found that SBC was
apparently liable for a forfeiture of eighty eight thousand
dollars ($88,000) for 11 of the 13 apparent violations that SBC
SBC, in its Assertion on Compliance, did not dispute that it
gathered and reported the data sought by the specific performance
measurements discussed below in a manner contrary to the Business
Rules for those measurements.9 Nevertheless, in its January 19,
2001 Response to the NAL, SBC contests the Bureau's finding of
apparent liability on the basis that: 1) the Bureau's allegations
have factual, interpretive, and legal errors; and 2) SBC is in
substantial compliance with the reporting requirements in the
Merger Conditions. In addition, SBC argues that the forfeiture
is unwarranted and that we improperly determined the amount of
the forfeiture. Except where we confirm two factual errors that
do not affect the number of violations at issue, we find none of
SBC's arguments to be persuasive.
II.A. The Apparent Violations
II.A.1. Factual Accuracy of the Allegations
After a careful review of SBC's Response to each allegation,10 we
find that, on the whole, the data SBC submitted in its monthly
filings, the statements SBC made in its Assertion on Compliance,
and the findings in the audit report together serve to refute
SBC's argument that the Bureau's allegations are largely
inaccurate.11 As an overarching observation, we also note that
SBC fails to provide any supporting documentation for the
majority of its assertions concerning the defects in the Bureau's
allegations.12 Furthermore, we think it very significant that
all the violations in the NAL were also noted in the auditor's
report and were confirmed by SBC in its Assertion.13
As an initial matter, however, the Bureau acknowledges that the
NAL includes two factual errors that do not affect the number of
violations. First, the NAL inaccurately stated the appropriate
time frame for SBC's use of a benchmark of 86,400 seconds in PM
2.14 Our review of SBC's monthly data submissions shows that SBC
committed this violation for only three months from April 17,
2000, until June 20, 2000, rather than for six months from
November 1, 1999, until April 17, 2000.15 The Bureau also
acknowledges that the NAL incorrectly stated that SBC violated PM
19 in the Pacific Bell region by failing to include any relevant
Z-scores in the data that it posted on the SBC website.16 As
noted in the audit report and SBC's data submission, this
violation actually occurred in the Nevada Bell region.17
Although the evidence still shows that SBC failed to follow the
Business Rules on both of these points, we will not consider
these two issues in assessing the forfeiture.
In all other respects, we are not persuaded by SBC's arguments,
and we find that the NAL accurately documented SBC's reporting
violations. First, SBC challenges the NAL's statement that, for
PM 1, SBC had failed to report properly the time and date of
receipt of firm order confirmations (FOCs) timely returned by
using standard time, rather than military time.18 SBC contends
that its errors would tend to understate, rather than overstate,
the number of FOCs timely returned on those orders. Although
this is true, it is also true that the NAL said that SBC had
incorrectly reported dates as well, potentially overstating, on
that basis, the percentage of FOCs timely received.19 Thus, we
conclude that SBC did not correctly report PM 1, as set forth in
the NAL, for a ten-month period from November 1, 1999, until
August 31, 2000.
Second, SBC disputes the NAL's finding that SBC failed, for PM 2,
to properly disaggregate the data into the two categories of
``CSR Summary 1-30 Lines'' and ``CSR 31 Lines or More.'' 20 SBC
maintains that it never included data for ``CSR 31 Lines or
More'' within the calculations for ``CSR Summary 1-30 Lines'' for
this performance measurement. SBC's data submissions from
November 1999 through April 2000, however, confirm our finding
that SBC failed to report accurately the response time for
requests for customer service records by collecting the data into
a single category, instead of disaggregating the data into two
categories of ``CSR Summary 1-30 Lines'' and ``CSR 31 Lines or
Furthermore, we find SBC's contention that the Bureau used
inaccurate time frames for the violations concerning performance
measurements 1, 14, and 15 reflect SBC's lack of understanding
that the time frame of the violations is based on the date of
reporting inaccurate data to the Commission, and not the date on
which SBC revised its data collection.22 For example, even
though SBC corrected the incorrect data collection for PM 1 in
January 2000, it did not submit the corrected January data to the
Commission until February 20, 2000. Our proposed forfeiture
related to the inaccurate report(s) received prior to the
February correction. Our records confirm the accuracy of the
reporting dates of the corrections of the noted violations in the
SBC contests the NAL's finding that the company apparently
violated PM 19 by excluding system outage data for OSS interface
availability. SBC claims that the charge is unsubstantiated
because the NAL does not specify the outages that occurred.24
But, both the audit report and SBC's assertion confirm that this
deficiency occurred. Moreover, SBC's failure to track this data
is the very reason that a more detailed description of the
violation cannot be provided. We will not permit SBC to absolve
itself of responsibility for admitted violations by arguing that
the Bureau has not met its burden of establishing the very same
2. Significance of the Violations
SBC contends that several of the errors documented in the NAL
violations are beyond the scope of the Commission's forfeiture
authority because they are of a de minimis nature.25 First, we
emphasize that SBC has not persuaded us that any such de minimis
exemption exists. The cases SBC cites for this proposition
cannot plausibly be read as the company suggests. Indeed, in Hale
Broadcasting,26 the Commission expressly rejected the standard
proposed by SBC.27 In any event, we do not agree that the
violations at issue are de minimis. Because of the importance of
ensuring the integrity of the entire scope of the Carrier-to-
Carrier Performance Plan, we consider each component of the
performance measurements to be significant. We also note that,
consistent with applicable auditing standards,28 the independent
auditor included in the audit report only those findings it
considered to be material.29 Moreover, the NAL treated as a
violation not each individual reporting error, but rather each
report containing multiple errors. We do not accept that a
report containing at least as many as 12 errors constitutes a de
SBC also argues that the allegation regarding PM 3 does not
support a forfeiture because the requested data was purely
diagnostic and not tied to the voluntary performance payments.30
We disagree. SBC is obliged to follow the Business Rules in
their entirety and this obligation is not related to whether the
data in question triggers a performance payment.
3. Business Rules
SBC's argues that several of the documented errors should not be
considered because of SBC's difference of opinion regarding the
applicable Business Rules.31 We disagree. As we stated in the
NAL, the Merger Conditions require the Commission's approval
before any changes to the Business Rules may be implemented.
SBC, therefore, was obliged to notify the Common Carrier Bureau
and obtain its assent before modifying the implementation of
these particular Business Rules.32 SBC was also given an
opportunity to provide its input during the formulation of the
Business Rules, and thus had ample opportunity to make any
suggestions at that stage. SBC's failure to apply the
Commission's Business Rules accurately after the Commission's
release of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order cannot be excused.
Furthermore, we take exception to SBC's repeated contention that
its submission of data in a greater level of disaggregation than
that specified by the Business Rules does not constitute a
violation of the Business Rules because the Commission is free to
reaggregate the data on its own.33 We reiterate that SBC is
required to track and submit the performance data in the manner
prescribed by the Business Rules. As we stated in the NAL, the
very reason for the Commission's adoption of the Business Rules
is to provide uniform reporting standards that would permit the
Commission to focus its efforts on analyzing the results of the
data, rather than monitoring the gathering of the data.34 The
Business Rules also enable the Carrier-to-Carrier Performance
Plan to work in a self-executing manner to ensure timely
disclosure of accurate performance data and submission of any
II.B. SBC's Compliance Under the Applicable Legal
1. Willful and Repeated
Pointing to the Commission's statement in Midwest Radio-
Television that ``the policy factor which has been the main key
to our actions'' in the forfeiture area is ``a demonstrated lack
of concern or indifference on the part of the licensee for
compliance with the Act or our Rules,''36 SBC asserts that the
NAL has failed to establish that any noncompliance was willful
because the Bureau has not demonstrated a lack of concern or
indifference for compliance on SBC's part.37 Even assuming the
continuing validity of this sentence from a case decided nearly
40 years ago, SBC's argument has no merit. The substantial number
of violations documented in the NAL is not consistent with SBC's
characterization of its performance as ``characterized by extreme
care and meticulousness.''38 Thus, the violations themselves
establish SBC's lack of diligence in following the Business Rules
strictly. Moreover, SBC's claims that some of the violations
were merely ``scrivener's errors'' or were inadvertent are
insufficient to defeat the finding of willfulness.39 It has long
been established that the word ``willfully,'' as employed in
section 503(b) of the Act, does not require a demonstration that
SBC knew that it was acting unlawfully. Section 503(b) requires
only a finding that SBC knew it was doing the acts in question
and that the acts were not accidental.40 We emphasize that the
forfeiture is based on SBC's failure to file accurate reports, as
opposed to the gathering of inaccurate data. The violations that
SBC maintains are inadvertent cannot be excused as mere
accidents, since SBC filed inaccurate reports for the performance
measurements at issue multiple times over a period of several
months. SBC's continued failure to correct such ``accidents''
over several months implies a willful lack of diligence in
ensuring the accuracy of its reporting.
Similarly ineffectual is SBC's statement that the allegations
upon which the NAL relies are insufficient to warrant a
determination that SBC's noncompliance has been repeated.41 The
fact that SBC repeatedly filed incorrect reports over a period of
13 months (only 12 of which we address here) belies any
suggestion that SBC's violations were not repeated.42
2. Failure to Comply
Because this forfeiture action concerns an alleged failure to
comply with a condition of a license transfer authorization, SBC
asserts that its behavior is governed only by the substantial
compliance standard of section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act,43 rather
than the strict liability compliance standard within section
503(b)(1)(B).44 SBC further maintains that the allegations in
the NAL do not establish that SBC failed to substantially comply
with the Merger Conditions.45 Because the record demonstrates
substantial noncompliance by SBC, the Bureau's reference in the
NAL to the section 503(b)(1)(B) standard does not affect the
The Bureau has established that SBC willfully and repeatedly
violated the Merger Conditions in 17 respects for up to 13
months. Thus, we conclude that SBC fails under the substantial
compliance standard of section 503(b)(1)(A). It is not the
Commission's practice to impose forfeitures for insubstantial
II.C. Imposition of a Forfeiture
SBC contends that forfeiture is unjustified because it
subsequently corrected the deficiencies.46 But, the fact that
SBC's violations ceased does not eliminate its responsibility for
the period during which they occurred. Moreover, we emphasize
that SBC's obligation under the Merger Conditions to make
voluntary incentive payments to the U.S. Treasury in the event it
fails to meet designated performance thresholds is a separate
enforcement mechanism.47 Therefore, the fact that the majority
of the allegations at issue involve performance reporting that
occurred only prior to the implementation of voluntary payments
is irrelevant as to the assessment of a forfeiture.48
Furthermore, we disagree with SBC's contention that the NAL
failed to apply relevant mitigating factors and erred in imposing
an upward adjustment to the base amount in the forfeiture
guidelines.49 In assessing the mitigating factors that might be
applied in this context,50 we concluded in the NAL that very
little of SBC's conduct merited the application of a downward
adjustment. The Bureau is not convinced that any of the factors
that SBC asserts in its Response serve to mitigate its conduct.51
Because each violation could potentially compromise the integrity
of the Carrier-to-Carrier Performance Plan, we reject SBC's
characterization of the violations as minor. Moreover, although
SBC makes much of its voluntary disclosure of some of the
violations included in the NAL, we note that SBC was required to
make such disclosures.52 With respect to SBC's argument that its
history of compliance qualifies as a mitigating factor, we note
that SBC has been found to violate the Act or our rules on
several occasions in the past five years.53
In addition, we reject SBC's argument that the NAL misapplied the
relevant upward adjustment factors.54 An upward adjustment of
the suggested forfeiture penalty is justified in this case
because of the central role of the Carrier-to-Carrier Performance
Plan in ensuring open local markets by monitoring the quality of
SBC's service to other telecommunications carriers55 We disagree
with SBC's contention that its deficiencies in performance
reporting will not compromise the effectiveness of the Merger
Conditions in ensuring open local markets.56 As we stated in the
NAL, deficiencies such as the use of less rigorous standards than
those required under the designated business rules could mask
material deficiencies in SBC's performance and ultimately
undermine the voluntary payment scheme established in the merger
conditions.57 The omission of key data could also lead to a
``muddying'' of the reported results, which would make it
difficult for CLECs to determine independently whether there are
discrimination problems.58 We further emphasize that the
forfeiture guidelines allow the Commission considerable
flexibility to determine the appropriate forfeiture.59 These
guidelines are not the strait-jacket that SBC portrays them to
An upward adjustment of the suggested forfeiture penalty for each
violation is also justified in light of the number of SBC's
violations of the reporting requirements in the SBC/Ameritech
Merger Order over an extended period of time.60 Therefore, we
find no basis for reducing the forfeiture against SBC. In
addition, we note that, because SBC's forfeiture penalty is based
on the number of months it submitted inaccurate reports, the
inaccuracies in the NAL described in paragraph five above do not
serve to reduce the proposed forfeiture in the NAL. In the each
of the months at issue, SBC violated the Business Rules in other
material respects, and the $8000 proposed forfeiture for each of
those months will stand.
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of
the Act, 61 and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 62 SBC
Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the
sum of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully
or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner
provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30
days of release of this order. If the forfeiture is not paid
within the period specified, the case will be referred to the
Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a)
of the Act.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of Forfeiture
shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested to SBC
Communications, c/o Sandra L.Wagner, Vice President-Federal
Regulatory, 1401 I Street, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
1 Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC
Communications, Inc., Transferee, For Consent to Transfer
Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines
Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act
and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission's
Rules, CC Docket 98-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC
Rcd 14712, 14856 (1999) (``SBC/Ameritech Merger Order'').
2 SBC Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, DA 00-2858 (Dec. 20, 2000).
3 The Business Rules accompanying the Carrier-to-Carrier
Performance Plan describe the specific data requirements and
measurement standards for each performance measurement. See
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachments A-2a, ,
``SBC/Ameritech Performance Measurements Business Rules (except
California and Nevada),'' and A-2b, ``SBC/Ameritech Performance
Measurements Business Rules (California and Nevada).''
4 The Performance Plan requires SBC to file with the
Commission and each of the relevant state commissions, on a
monthly basis, performance data reflecting 20 different
categories for each of SBC's 13 in-region states and is part of
the package of conditions designed to foster the public interest
goal of opening local markets to competition by ensuring that
SBC's service to competitors does not deteriorate as a result of
the merger. See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14867,
Appendix C at ¶ 24, and Attachment A at ¶ 13.
5 NAL at ¶¶ 1, 9.
6 See Aug. 31, 2000 Report of Independent Auditors, Ernst &
Young, LLP (Auditor's Report on Compliance). This report only
covered SBC's conduct in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and
Arkansas, California and Nevada from October 8, 1999 through
December 31, 1999.
7 See Aug. 31, 2000 Report of Management on Compliance with
the Merger Conditions (Management's Assertion on Compliance).
8 NAL at ¶ 14. Because section 503(b)(6) of the Act limits
the Commission's jurisdiction over this cause of action to one
year from the time the action accrued, our forfeiture
calculation did not include a penalty for any violations that
occurred during November and December of 1999.
9 Management's Assertion on Compliance at 1, 3, and
10 SBC Exhibit A, SBC's Response to Specific Allegations/
Declaration of Gwen S. Johnson and William R. Dysart.
11 Response at 8.
12 See, e.g. Response at A-3 (PM 2), A-10 (PM 14), and A-11
13 Management's Assertion on Compliance at 1, 3, and
14 SBC Exhibit A at A-3 (PM 2). See NAL at ¶ 12.
15 See SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, April 20,
2000; June 20, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data
Submission, June 20, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director,
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Anthony Dale, FCC.
16 SBC Exhibit A at A-12 (PM 19). June 20, 2000 letter and
attached Interim Performance Data Submission, June 20, 2000,
from Chris Jines, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, SBC,
to Anthony Dale, FCC.
17 See Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at
14, ¶ m. See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec.
1, 1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, August 30,
18 SBC Exhibit A at A-1 (PM 1).
19 NAL at ¶ 12. In its Response, SBC has not responded to
this aspect of the alleged violation. See SBC Exhibit A at A-1,
20 SBC Exhibit A at A-3 (PM 2).
21 Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13, ¶
c. See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1,
1999; SBC Interim Performance Data Submission, April 17, 2000.
22 See SBC Exhibit A at A-2 (PM 1), A-10 (PM 14) and A-11 (PM
23 See Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at
16, ¶ f. See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec.
1, 1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, Feb. 20, 2000
(PM 1); Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at
14, ¶ h. See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec.
1, 1999; Sep. 8, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance
Data Submission, Sep. 8, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive
Director, Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Mark Stone, FCC (PM 14);
Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 14, ¶ g.
See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 1, 1999;
Aug. 31, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data
Submission, Aug. 31, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director,
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Mark Stone, FCC (PM 15).
24 Response at 9; SBC Exhibit A at A-13 (PM 19).
25 Response at 9. See also SBC Exhibit A at A-6 (PM 4c), A-7
(PM 7c) and A-10 (PM 13).
26 79 FCC 2d 169 (1980).
27 See Hale Broadcasting Corporation, 79 FCC 2d at 171-172.
Moreover, in the other cases cited, CRC Broadcasting, 15 FCC Rcd
6697 (1999) and John Meister, 9 FCC Rcd 90 (1993), there is no
discussion of whether a ``de minimis'' violation can support a
28 A material finding is one that would cause a reasonable
person to change their judgement of management's assertion. See
Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts (Financial Accounting
Standards Board 1980); see also compliance attestation for
financial audits, Statement of Standards for Attestation
Engagements No. 3, § 54 (American Inst. of Certified Pub.
29 See Auditor's Report on Compliance at 2.
30 SBC Exhibit A at A-4 (PM 3).
31 See SBC Exhibit A at A-3 (NAL at ¶ 12; PM 3), A-4, 5 (NAL
at ¶ 12; PM 4c), A-7 (NAL at ¶ 12; PM 7c), A-7, 8 (NAL at ¶ 12;
PM 9), A-8, 9 (NAL at ¶ 12; PMs 12b and 12c), A-10 (NAL at ¶ 12;
PM 14), A-11 (NAL at ¶ 12; PM 15), A-11, 12 (NAL at ¶ 12; PM
32 NAL at ¶ 10. See also June 5, 2000 Letter from Chris
Jines, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Carol
Mattey, Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau.
33 SBC Exhibit A at A-4 (PM 4c); A-8 (PMs 12b and 12c).
34 NAL at ¶ 11.
35 NAL at ¶ 11.
36 See Midwest Radio-Television Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 45 FCC 1137, 1141 (1963).
37 Response at 14, 15.
38 Response at 14.
39 SBC Exhibit A at A-6 (PM 4c); A-10 (PM 14).
40 ConQuest Operator Services Corp., Order of Forfeiture, FCC
99-194, at ¶ 15 n.41 (rel. July 26, 1999); Target Telecom.,
Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 4456, 4458 (1998);
Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 (1991).
41 Response at 15.
42 See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
4388 (1991); see also Hale Broadcasting Corp., 79 FCC 2d 169,
43 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A). This provision states in
relevant part that any person who is determined by the
Commission, in accordance with paragraph (3) or (4) of
subsection (b), to have- ``willfully or repeatedly failed to
comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any
license, permit, certificate, or other instrument or
authorization issued by the Commission'' shall be liable to the
United States for a forfeiture penalty.
44 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). This provision imposes a
forfeiture penalty when a person is found to have ``willfully or
repeatedly failed to comply with any of the provisions of this
Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
Commission under this Act or under any treaty, convention, or
other agreement to which the United States is a party and which
is binding upon the United States;''...
45 Response at 8.
46 Response at 13.
47 See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-3,
``Calculation of Parity and Benchmark Performance and Voluntary
Payments,'' and Attachment A-4, ``Voluntary Payments for
Performance Measurements.'' The amount of the payments varies
according to the level and significance of discrimination
detected. SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14867. SBC is
required to make its first payments to the U.S. Treasury for
failing to meet the performance thresholds during the months of
August, September, and October of 2000 no later than December
20, 2000. The reported data form the basis for calculating the
48 Response at 13. SBC is incorrect in stating that only one
of the violations at issue in the NAL continued beyond the 270-
day period that SBC was not required to make voluntary payments.
SBC failed to correct six deficiencies, involving PMs 1, 13, 14,
15, 18, and 19, during the time it was also required to make
voluntary payments for failure to perform according to the
benchmarks and other parity guidelines set forth in Appendix C
of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order.
49 Response at 16-18.
50 NAL at ¶ 13.
51 Response at 16, 17.
52 See 47 U.S.C. § 220(e).
53 See, e.g. C.F. Communications Corp., et al. v. Century
Telephone of Wisconsin, Inc., et. al., Memorandum Opinion and
Order on Remand, 15 FCC Rcd 8759 (2000), appeal pending, Bell
Atlantic, et al. v. FCC, No. 00-1207 (D.C. Cir. filed May 15,
2000); AT&T Corp., MCI Telecommunications Corp., et al. v. Bell
Atlantic-Pennsylvania, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14
FCC Rcd 556 (1998); recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 7467 (2000); review
denied 15 FCC Rcd 16,124 (2000); Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd
6964 (1998); AT&T Corp. International Telecharge v. Southwestern
Bell Telephone Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd
54 Response at 17.
55 NAL at ¶ 15.
56 Response at 12.
57 NAL at ¶ 11.
58 NAL at ¶ 11.
59 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also The Commission's
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100 (1997) (``Forfeiture
Policy Statement''); recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47
C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
60 NAL at ¶ 15.
61 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
62 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.