Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

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

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
WebNet Communications, Inc.      )    File No. EB-01-TC-064
                                )    NAL/Acct. No. 200232170002
Apparent Liability for           )    FRN:  0006-2725-53
Forfeiture

           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE


     Adopted:  June 13, 2002                      Released:  June 
20. 2002

By the Commission:


                        I.  INTRODUCTION

In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL),1 we 
find that WebNet Communications, Inc. (WebNet) apparently 
willfully or repeatedly violated section 258 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),2 as well as 
Commission rules and orders, by changing the designated preferred 
carriers of 20 consumers without their authorization and 
verification, a practice commonly known as ``slamming.''3  Based 
upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 
violations, we find WebNet apparently liable for a forfeiture in 
the amount of $1,200,000.  Continued violations of our rules 
could result in the issuance of an order to show cause why 
WebNet's operating authority should not be revoked and its 
principals prohibited from being a principal in any other 
interstate telecommunications provider without prior Commission 
approval.4

After receiving a high number of consumer complaints against 
WebNet, the Enforcement Bureau, along with 14 state agencies, 
launched an investigation into the consumers' allegations of 
slamming.  The 14 state agencies, all of whom represent states 
that have chosen to administer our slamming liability rules,5 
forwarded information on WebNet's activities to us.6  Based on 
the complaints received, along with the responses WebNet 
provided, we conclude that WebNet apparently violated section 258 
of the Act and section 64.1120 of Commission's rules.7  As 
explained below, we propose a fine of $60,000 for each of 20 
apparent violations represented by the consumer complaints listed 
in Appendix A, for a total proposed forfeiture of $1,200,000.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

A.   The Complaints

WebNet is a national provider of long distance telephone service, 
located in McLean, VA.8  All of the consumers who filed the 
complaints that form the basis of this NAL maintain that they did 
not authorize WebNet to change their preferred carriers.9  For 
illustrative purposes, we will profile two complaints that appear 
to be representative of WebNet's marketing and verification 
practices.

At the end of July, 2001, Bernadette and Mark Mercurio filed a 
complaint alleging that WebNet changed their preferred long 
distance carrier to WebNet without their authorization.10  In 
support of that complaint, Mr. And Mrs. Mercurio also filed a 
declaration, which stated in part:

       On June 20th, someone called us from WebNet 
       explaining that our name and telephone number had 
       been picked by their computer system for us to win 
       a free gift.  WebNet stated that we won a 500 
       minute phone card and $50.00.  In order for us to 
       claim our prize, WebNet asked my wife to give her 
       name, address, telephone number, DOB, mother's 
       maiden name, and they asked her to say ``yes'' if 
       she agrees to accepting her free gift.  At no time 
       did WebNet say that we would have to switch our 
       [long-distance] provider to WebNet in order to 
       receive our gift. . . .

       On July 25, 2001, my husband received our telephone 
       bill in the amount of $120.52.  Immediately, he 
       contacted WebNet and found out that Bernadette's 
       recorded conversation from June 20th was used out 
       of context to switch our telephone service.  WebNet 
       played a tape with my wife's voice saying ``yes'' 
       that she would like to switch to their long 
       distance service, when they were in fact telling 
       her about a free gift. . . . a WebNet 
       representative said that we would have to remain 
       with WebNet's . . . long distance service for a 
       period of six months in order to receive our gift. 
       . . . 11

On August 27, 2001, Mr. Edward Kwiatkowski filed a complaint 
alleging that WebNet had switched his preferred long distance 
carrier from AT&T to WebNet without his authorization.12  Mr. 
Kwiatkowski was not aware that his service had been switched 
until he received a letter from AT&T stating that they would miss 
having him as their customer.  Sometime in July, 2001, WebNet 
apparently solicited their services to Mr. Kwiatkowski's 
14?year?old handicapped daughter over the phone, and recorded the 
conversation with her as authority to switch long distance 
service.  When Mr. Kwiatkowski contacted WebNet, the 
representative played the recorded message of his daughter 
responding to WebNet's third?party verifier.  Mr. Kwiatkowski 
states that his daughter was not authorized to switch his 
preferred carrier, nor could she have understood that she was 
doing so.13 

B.    Verification Provided by WebNet

Upon receipt of the consumer complaints, the state agencies and 
the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
forwarded the complaints to WebNet.14  In response, WebNet either 
1) provided tapes purporting to show that the consumers 
authorized the changes, or 2) provided no evidence that the 
changes were authorized.  The following transcript from tapes 
provided by the Maine Public Utilities Commission illustrates 
WebNet's third?party verification procedures [for clarity, we 
have numbered each clause]:

       [1] Recorded Voice:  Thank you for choosing WebNet 
       as your long distance and local long distance 
       provider.  You have been selected to receive $100 
       just for trying our new 7 cent calling plan for all 
       your interstate calls in the continental United 
       States for 180 days.  Restrictions may apply, void 
       where prohibited.

       [2] Please answer the following questions.  Please 
       state your name and address.

       [3] Are you the decision-maker choosing WebNet as 
       your long distance and local long distance 
       provider?  Please say ``yes'' at the tone.

       [4] For security purposes, state your date of birth 
       or your mother's maiden name at the tone. 15
                        III.  DISCUSSION

A.   The Deficient Verification Evidence

Section 258 of the Act makes 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."16  Section 64.1120 
of the Commission's rules prescribe that no carrier ``shall 
submit a change on the behalf of a subscriber . . . prior to 
obtaining: (i) Authorization from the subscriber, and (ii) 
Verification of that authorization in accordance with the 
procedures prescribed in this section.''17  The Commission's 
rules thus expressly bar telecommunications carriers from 
changing a consumer's preferred carrier without first obtaining 
the consumer's consent, and then verifying that consent.

The Commission's rules provide some latitude in the methods 
carriers can use to verify carrier change requests.  The carrier 
can elect to verify that authorization through one of three 
options: obtaining the consumer's written or electronically 
signed authorization; setting up a toll free number for the 
consumer to call for verification; or obtaining authorization 
through an independent third party.18  There is no latitude, 
however, in the requirement that carriers obtain both 
authorization and verification prior to submitting a carrier 
change request.  For those carriers who use an independent third 
party for verification, our rules require that the verification 
method confirm at least six things: 

       the identity of the subscriber; confirmation that 
       the person on the call is authorized to make the 
       carrier change; confirmation that the person on the 
       call wants to make the change; the names of the 
       carriers affected by the change; the telephone 
       numbers to be switched; and the types of service 
       involved.19

Our rules also require that carriers keep audio records of the 
verification for a minimum of two years.20  Finally, the 
Commission's rules require that when a carrier "is selling more 
than one type of telecommunications service ... that carrier must 
obtain separate authorization from the subscriber for each 
service sold...Each authorization must be verified separately 
from any other authorizations obtained in the same 
solicitation.21

The tapes that WebNet submitted in response to the complaints 
indicate that WebNet is not obtaining separate verification for 
each service sold.  Furthermore, WebNet's verification process 
does not gather the critical information that our rules require.  
For example, the tapes discussed above22 that WebNet sent to the 
Maine Public Utilities Commission do not confirm in an acceptable 
manner that the person is authorized to make the change and, most 
significantly, do not confirm the switch of the authorized 
carrier.  In this regard, paragraph one does not confirm that the 
consumer wants to make a change, but rather assumes that the 
consumer has already given authorization, during the sales 
portion of the call, to change preferred carriers and receive 
WebNet's promotional offer.  Paragraph three confusingly combines 
questions as to whether the person is the authorized 
decisionmaker and whether the person is choosing WebNet as his or 
her preferred carrier.  The consumer does not know which question 
they are answering when told to say "yes."    Moreover, paragraph 
three does not give the consumer an opportunity to answer ``yes'' 
or ``no.''  Instead, it requests that that the consumer ``say yes 
at the tone.''  Therefore, this inquiry does not effectively 
confirm that the person on the phone is authorized, let alone 
wants, to change preferred carriers.  Finally, paragraph three 
does not obtain separate verification for each service sold.

The tapes that WebNet delivered to other states show similar 
deficiencies in its verification process.  The tape delivered to 
the State of Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection has verification questions that assume that 
authorization has been given:

       Thank you for choosing WebNet Communications Corp. 
       as your long distance and local long distance 
       provider.  In addition to the $100.00 check, you 
       have been selected to receive a free bonus gift . . 
       . .  a 100 minute pre-paid calling card.  Please 
       answer the following.  At the tone, state your name 
       as you would like it to appear on your $100.00 
       check. Spell if necessary.''  To receive your free 
       gift of a 100 minute pre-paid calling card, state 
       your address at the tone.  Are you authorized to 
       make decisions for your telephone?  Please say 
       ``yes'' at the tone.  To confirm your identity, at 
       the tone please state your date of birth.  Thank 
       you, your order has been processed. 23

Here again, the verification process asks the consumer if 
he/she is authorized to make a preferred carrier change, 
and then directs him/her to say ``yes,'' with no option to 
respond otherwise.  As in Maine, WebNet's verification 
process effectively confirms only the identity of the 
consumer.  Furthermore, the ``free'' gifts mentioned 
obscure the fact that the consumer is verifying a change 
in his/her preferred carrier.

The tapes that WebNet delivered to the Washington Utilities and 
Transportation Commission also show a verification process that 
confirms only the identity of the consumer. This verification is 
even more defective than the previous two examples in assuming 
that the consumer has already decided to change preferred 
carriers; it doesn't even ask a single question:

       Thank you for choosing WebNet as your long distance 
       and local long distance provider.  You have been 
       selected to receive $100 just for trying our new       
       7?cent calling plan for all of your interstate 
       calls in the continental United States for 180 
       days.  Restrictions may apply.  Void where 
       prohibited.  Please answer the following questions.  
       Please state your name and complete address.  Spell 
       if necessary.  For security purposes, state your 
       date of birth or your mother's maiden name at the 
       tone.24

The above examples show a pattern of verification that falls 
egregiously short of the requirements in our rules.  None of the 
``verifications'' either confirm all of the things required by 
our rules, including the key fact of whether the consumer is 
authorizing a change in their long distance carrier, or give the 
consumer a chance to refute WebNet's assumption that the consumer 
has authorized a carrier change.  Furthermore, the verification 
tapes do not separately verify authorization for each service 
sold as required by the Commission's rules.  As the Commission 
has previously held, a verification that merely assumes a 
consumer's previous authorization to change preferred carriers 
does not meet the requirements in our rules.25  In fact, the 
tapes confirm that the verification process and language used by 
WebNet was misleading and deceptive and the very kind of behavior 
the Commission sought to avoid in adopting verification rules.26  
Accordingly, the tapes that WebNet submitted are not sufficient 
to rebut the allegations in the complaints that it changed the 
preferred carriers of the 4 consumers without prior 
authorization.

B.   Failure to Provide Evidence

For the remaining 16 complaints, WebNet failed to provide a tape 
or any other evidence to rebut the allegations in the complaints.  
This failure on WebNet's part leads us to conclude that WebNet is 
apparently liable for changing the preferred carriers of those 
consumers without authorization.27  As we discussed above, our 
rules require carriers to keep audio records of third-party 
verification for a minimum of two years after obtaining the 
verification. 28  WebNet has not produced evidence to show that 
it used third?party verification or any of the other verification 
methods that our rules allow. 29  Furthermore, based on the 
several ``verification'' tapes discussed above,30 it is 
reasonable to assume that any verification WebNet might have 
obtained would likely fall egregiously short of the requirements 
in our rules.  Therefore, even if WebNet did use a third?party 
verifier, WebNet still would not likely have sufficient evidence 
to rebut the allegations in the complaints that it changed the 
preferred carriers of the remaining 16 consumers without prior 
authorization.

                     IV.  FORFEITURE AMOUNT

Section 503(b) of the Communications Act authorizes the 
Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $120,000 for each 
violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued 
by the Commission under the Act.31  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."32  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. 33  These policies and 
guidelines, however, include upward adjustment criteria that 
warrant a higher forfeiture amount based on the particular facts 
and circumstances of the violation(s).34  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.35  As provided by the 
Commission's rules, the Commission and its staff retain the 
discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture, as permitted by 
statute.36

On several occasions, the Commission has sternly warned carriers 
that it would take swift and decisive enforcement action, 
including the imposition of substantial monetary forfeitures, 
against any carrier found to have engaged in slamming.37  We 
believe that a significant forfeiture is warranted in all of the 
cases discussed above, based on WebNet's apparent pattern of 
egregious behavior.  In the cases where WebNet provided 
``verification'' tapes, those tapes proved only that its 
verification process is grossly deficient in satisfying the 
requirements in our rules.  WebNet's verification process, 
combined with its offer of a ``free'' gift, seems designed to 
confuse consumers about the fact that they are authorizing a 
preferred carrier change.  Furthermore, the Commission has raised 
concerns that any misrepresentation or miscommunication between 
the consumer and the telemarketer during the sales process would 
go undetected by a similar verification process that did not 
elicit a clear statement that the consumer intended to change 
carriers. 38  In the remaining cases, where WebNet failed to 
provide any evidence to rebut the allegations that it changed 
consumers' preferred carriers without authorization, we believe 
that a significant forfeiture is also warranted.  In those cases, 
WebNet either apparently failed to verify any of the supposed 
authorizations to change the preferred carriers, or apparently 
failed to provide tapes in response to the consumers' 
allegations.  To the extent that WebNet failed to keep the 
verification records, that would also be a violation of the 
requirement in our rules that carriers keep audio records of 
third?party verification for a minimum of two years after 
obtaining such verification.39  Failure to meet any of these 
requirements demonstrates a disregard for the Commission's entire 
verification process, and therefore merits an increase in the 
forfeiture amount.  Furthermore, based on the verification tapes 
provided, to the extent that WebNet did ``verify'' these 
preferred carrier changes, it appears that such verification did 
not comply with our rules, as discussed above.40  The gross 
deficiencies or absence of WebNet's verification process lead us 
to conclude that WebNet apparently intentionally and egregiously 
violated section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules and orders.  
We therefore find that the upward adjustment criterion related to 
intentional and egregious misconduct is applicable in each of 
WebNet's 20 apparent violations.  We propose applying the base 
forfeiture amount of $40,000 for each of the 20 apparent 
violations of section 258 of the Act and section 64.1120 of the 
Commission's rules, or $800,000, and increasing this amount by 
50%, for a total proposed forfeiture of $1,200000.41  WebNet will 
have the opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in 
response to this NAL to show that no forfeiture should be imposed 
or that some lesser amount should be assessed.42  Finally, we 
note that continued violations of our rules could result in the 
issuance of a show cause order why WebNet's operating authority 
should not be revoked and its principals prohibited from being a 
principal in any other interstate telecommunications provider 
without prior Commission approval.43

              V.  CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERING CLAUSES

We have determined  that WebNet Communications, Inc. has 
apparently violated section 258 of the Act and the Commission's 
preferred carrier change rules and orders44 by changing the 
preferred telephone service carriers of 20 consumers identified 
in the complaints found in Appendix A, on the dates and in the 
manner described herein. We have further determined that WebNet 
Communications, Inc. is apparently liable for a base forfeiture 
in the amount of $40,000 for each of 20 apparent violations.  
WebNet's apparent intentional and egregious misconduct represents 
a gross dereliction of its verification obligations; accordingly, 
we propose increasing the forfeiture by 50%, resulting in a total 
proposed forfeiture of $1,200,000.

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 
WebNet Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,200,000 for willful 
or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  
258, and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and 
orders as described in the paragraphs above. 45

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, WebNet Communications, Inc. 
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture46 OR SHALL 
FILE a response showing why the proposed forfeiture should not be 
imposed or should be reduced.

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, in the event that WebNet Communications, Inc. engages in 
any telemarketing activity after the date of issuance of this 
Notice of Apparent Liability, it shall inform the Commission in 
advance and SHALL FILE with the Commission, within thirty (30) 
days of engaging in such activity, a compliance plan detailing 
the actions WebNet Communications, Inc. will take and the 
procedures it will establish to ensure compliance with section 
258 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders relating to 
preferred carrier changes.  The compliance plan shall set forth 
the revisions WebNet Communications, Inc. shall make to bring its 
marketing and verification scripts into compliance with the Act 
and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified mail to 
WebNet Communications, Inc. in care of Charles H. Helein, Esq., 
The Helein Law Group, P.C., 8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700, 
McLean, Virginia 22102, and to 8260 Greensboro Drive, Suite 240, 
McLean, VA  22102, attention: Moleaka Williams, Regulatory 
Department.



                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Marlene H. Dortch
                    Secretary

_________________________

1    See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(4)(A).  The Commission has authority 
under this section of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty 
against a common carrier if the Commission determines that the 
carrier has "willfully or repeatedly" failed to comply with the 
provisions of the Act or with any rule, regulation, or order 
issued by the Commission under the Act.  For a violation to be 
willful, it need not be intentional.  Southern California 
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).  See also Implementation 
of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning 
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers Long Distance Carriers, Second 
Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1539 (1998) (1998 Second 
Report and Order).

2    47 U.S.C.  258.  

3    ``Slamming''  is   the  submission   or  execution   of   an 
unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of a provider  of 
telecommunications   service.    See,   generally,   47    C.F.R. 
64.1100?64.1195.
4    See CNN, Inc.,  et al,  Order to  Show Cause  and Notice  of 
Opportunity for Hearing, 12 FCC Rcd 8547 (1997).
5    See Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection 
Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First 
Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158, 8169-79 (2000) 
(establishing guidelines for state administration of the slamming 
rules).
6    Agencies in the following states participated in this 
investigation:  Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, 
Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Washington, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin.
7    47 U.S.C.  258; 47 C.F.R.  64.1120.
8    WebNet's principal place of business is 8260 Greensboro 
Drive, Suite 240, McLean, VA  22102.  Dun & Bradstreet report 
number 06-783-9394 dated February 15, 2002.
9    All of the complainants listed in Appendix A have signed 
declarations.
10   Complaint dated August 31, 2001, from Mark and Bernadette 
Mercurio, filed with the FCC.
11   Declaration dated May 7, 2002, from Bernadette and Mark 
Mercurio.
12   Complaint dated August 27, 2001, from Edward Kwiatkowski.
13   Declaration dated May 6, 2002, from Edward Kwiatkowski.
14   See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.717 for the Commission's procedures 
regarding informal complaints.
15   See WebNet response tapes for the complaints of Martha 
Carton, Emery Johnson, and Ninnette King filed with the State of 
Maine.  The tape that WebNet filed with the Illinois Attorney 
General contained identical verification text.  See WebNet 
response tape for the complaint of Robert Schwarzlose, filed with 
the State of Illinois. Although we are not assessing a forfeiture 
for this complaint, we cite the response tape for illustrative 
purposes.
16   47 U.S.C.  258.

17   47 C.F.R.  64.1120(a)(1).
18   47 C.F.R.  64.1120(c).
19   47 C.F.R.  64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
20   47 C.F.R.  64.1120(c)(3)(iv).
21   47 C.F.R.  64.1120(b).
22   See supra, para.  \* MERGEFORMAT 6.
23   WebNet response tape for the complaint of Barb Salzer and 
Fred Stearns, filed with the State of Wisconsin.  Although we are 
not assessing a forfeiture for this complaint, we cite the 
response tape for illustrative purposes.
24   WebNet response tape for the complaint of Deborah Boober, 
filed with the State of Washington.
25   See In the Matter of America's Tele-Network Corp., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 5788, 
5795-96 (2001) (ATNC NAL); see also In the Matter of America's 
Tele-Network Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 22,350, 
22,352-53 (2001) (ATNC Forfeiture).
26   See 1998 Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1544-56.
27   See In the Matter of Vista Services Corporation, Order of 
Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 20,646, 20,649 (2000); recon. denied, 16 
FCC Rcd 8289 (2001).
28   47 C.F.R.  64.1120(c)(3)(iv).
29   As we discuss above, our rules allow carriers to verify 
carrier change authorization in one of  three ways:  obtaining 
the consumer's written or electronically signed authorization; 
setting up a toll free number for the consumer to call for 
verification; or obtaining authorization through an independent 
third party.  See 47C.F.R. 64.1120(c).
30   See supra, paras.  \* MERGEFORMAT 6,  \* MERGEFORMAT 10, and  
\* MERGEFORMAT 11.
31   Section 503(b)(2)(B) provides for forfeitures up to $100,000 
for each violation or a maximum of $1,000,000 for each continuing 
violation by common carriers or an applicant for any common 
carrier license, permit, certificate or similar instrument.  47 
U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(B).  The Commission amended its rules by 
adding a new subsection to its monetary foreiture provisions that 
incorporates by reference the inflation adjustment requirements 
contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), 
Pub L. No. 104-134,  31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996).  Thus, the 
maximum statutory forfeiture per violation pursuant to section 
503(b)(2)(B) increased from $100,000 to $120,000.  See Amendment 
of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of 
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd. 18,221 
(2000).

32   See 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 17,087 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy 
Statement); recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

33   See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4).

34   See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).  See also Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,100-01 (1997); 47 C.F.R.  
1.80(b)(4).

35   Id.  

36   See 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4). 
37   Brittan Communications International Corp., 15 FCC Rcd 4852 
(2000); Amer-I-Net Services Corp., 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000); All 
American Telephone Company, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 15,040 (1998).

38   See ATNC Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd at 22,354 (finding ATNC's 
verification process grossly deficient of the rules' 
requirements).
39   See 47 C.F.R.  64.1120(c)(3)(iv). 
40   See supra, para.  \* MERGEFORMAT 13.  WebNet will have an 
opportunity to provide verification tapes in response to this 
Notice of Apparent Liability.
41   See ATNC NAL, 16 FCC Rcd at 5798-99 (applying similar upward 
adjustment to $60,000 per instance of slamming).
42   See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f)(3).

43   See CNN, Inc., et al, Order to Show Cause and Notice of 
Opportunity for Hearing, 12 FCC Rcd 8547 (1997).
44   47 U.S.C.  258; 47 C.F.R.  64.1120; see also 1998 Second 
Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1508 (1998) and Implementation of 
the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning 
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and 
Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 10,674 (1997) (1997 FNPRM & 
Order on Reconsideration).

45   See 47 C.F.R. 64.1120; see also 1998 Second Report and 
Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1508; 1997 FNPRM & Order on Reconsideration, 
12 FCC Rcd at 10,674.

46   The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order 
drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.  
WebNet should include the reference ``NAL/Acct. No. 
200232170002'' on WebNet Communications' check or money order.  
Such remittance must be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, 
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box. 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  Requests for full payment 
under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Credit and 
Debt Management Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20554.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.