Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
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.
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
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: June 13, 2002 Released: June
By the Commission:
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
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.
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
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
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]:
 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
 Please answer the following questions. Please
state your name and address.
 Are you the decision-maker choosing WebNet as
your long distance and local long distance
provider? Please say ``yes'' at the tone.
 For security purposes, state your date of birth
or your mother's maiden name at the tone. 15
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
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.
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
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
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
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
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 47 C.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
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. §
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'
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.