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                 )
                                )
One Call Communications, Inc.    )
d/b/a Opticom                    )    File No. EB-02-TC-003
                                )    NAL/Acct. No. 200232170005
                                )    FRN: 0003772910
                                )
                                )
                                )

           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted:  September 17, 2002         Released:  September 23, 
2002

By the Commission: 

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we 
propose to  assess  a  forfeiture in  the  amount  of  $5,120,000 
against   One   Call    Communications,   Inc.   d/b/a    Opticom 
(``Opticom''),1  for  apparent   widespread  violations  of   the 
Communications Act of  1934, as  amended (the  ``Act''), and  the 
Commission's   rules   governing   operator   service   providers 
(``OSPs'').  2   These  violations  appear  to  be   particularly 
egregious because  they appear  to  have occurred  as part  of  a 
deliberate plan to mislead consumers.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   Opticom provides operator services that can be accessed 
through aggregator telephones across the United States. 3   These 
include hotel and motel room phones, as well as payphones located 
in airports, train  stations, shopping malls,  gas stations,  and 
other locations where they serve  the public or transient  users.  
As an OSP,  Commission rules require  Opticom to identify  itself 
audibly and distinctly at the beginning of each call, before  the 
consumer incurs any charge; to  permit the consumer to  terminate 
the call at  no charge  before it  is connected;  to provide  its 
rates to consumers upon request;  and to provide instructions  to 
the consumer on how to obtain  the total cost of the call,  which 
must be available either by dialing no more than two digits or by 
remaining on the line. 4

     3.   Over  the  last  several  months,  the  Commission  has 
received complaints from consumers who were connected to  Opticom 
and billed for charges  substantially higher than expected.   For 
instance, one consumer  filed a complaint  alleging that  Opticom 
failed to identify itself before she accepted a collect call, for 
which she  was  billed  $61.74 for  24  minutes.5   The  consumer 
assumed she would be billed by AT&T, her OSP of choice, and would 
not have accepted the  call if she had  known that she was  being 
billed by  Opticom.6  Another  consumer complained  that  Opticom 
failed to identify itself before a collect call she placed to her 
home, for which she  was charged $31.94 for  4 minutes.7  On  the 
second collect call she made, she was asked by the operator which 
long distance carrier  she preferred.8  She  requested AT&T,  but 
was billed $45.67 by Opticom for a 16-minute call.9  This pattern 
of complaints  suggested  that  consumers'  dialing  errors  (for 
instance, dialing  1-800-COOLECT instead  of 1-800-COLLECT)  were 
connecting them to Opticom, rather than the desired carrier,  and 
that Opticom's  failure to  identify  itself as  required  caused 
these errors to go  unnoticed.  The Enforcement Bureau  initiated 
an investigation into  Opticom's practices  to determine  whether 
Opticom was in compliance with the requirements for OSPs.  As set 
forth  in  detail  below,  that  investigation  showed   apparent 
widespread violation of the Commission's rules, which appears  to 
be part of a  deliberate scheme to  take advantage of  consumers' 
dialing errors.

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     III.A.    Legal Requirements 

     4.   Pursuant to Section 226(b)(1)(A) of the Act and Section 
64.703(a)(1) of  the rules,  each provider  of operator  services 
must identify itself, audibly and distinctly, to the consumer  at 
the beginning  of each  telephone call  and before  the  consumer 
incurs any  charge for  the call.10   This practice  is known  as 
``branding.''  The  purpose of  branding is  to ensure  that  the 
consumer knows who is carrying the call, in time to request  rate 
information,  and  to  decide  whether  to  use  that   carrier's 
services.  The  branding requirement  is intended  to reduce  the 
opportunity  for  carriers   to  impose   excessive  charges   on 
uninformed consumers.  In collect calling arrangements handled by 
a  provider  of  operator  services,   both  the  party  on   the 
originating end of the call and the party on the terminating  end 
of the call are considered ``consumers.''11  Therefore, to ensure 
that both  parties  are  fully  informed  when  making  decisions 
regarding whether to initiate or accept a collect call, an OSP is 
required to brand on both ends of such calls.  

     5.   Each provider of operator  services must also  disclose 
immediately to the  consumer, upon  request and at  no charge,  a 
quotation of its rates  or charges for  the call.12  For  collect 
calls, OSPs must provide this rate information to both the called 
party and the calling  party. 13  In  addition, each provider  of 
operator services  must disclose  audibly and  distinctly to  the 
consumer,  at  no   charge  and  before   connecting  any   call, 
instructions on how to obtain the  total cost of the call or  the 
maximum possible total cost of the call, before providing further 
oral advice to the consumer on how to proceed to make the call.14  
This oral disclosure must instruct consumers that they may obtain 
applicable rate quotations either, at the option of the  provider 
of operator services, by  dialing no more than  two digits or  by 
remaining on the line.15  

     III.B.    The Investigation

     6.  As part of  our investigation, Commission staff went  to 
several aggregator locations and placed multiple calls, including 
collect  calls,  via   Opticom  from   43  different   payphones.  
Commission staff was also on the  receiving end of some of  these 
collect calls to determine  whether Opticom identified itself  to 
the called  party  as well.   The  staff placed  the  calls  from 
payphones in locations  that are  heavily used  by consumers  and 
travellers in the Washington, D.C. area, such as Reagan  National 
Airport, Union Station, and L'Enfant Plaza Shopping Mall, as well 
as the Commission's own lobby.  To determine whether Opticom  was 
handling calls that  were likely the  result of misdialed  access 
codes, the  staff  placed  calls using  26  different  toll  free 
numbers that are  similar to well  known operator service  access 
numbers, such as MCI's  1-800-COLLECT, AT&T's 1-800-CALLATT,  and 
Verizon's 1-800-CALLGTE.16   The  numbers  were  called  multiple 
times, at  different locations  and times,  to determine  whether 
there  was  a  pattern  of   misconduct,  and  to  preclude   the 
possibility that any lack of compliance was an anomaly.

     7.   Our investigation revealed that Opticom failed to brand 
at the origination point  of the telephone call  on 25 of the  26 
telephone numbers dialed, and failed to brand at the  termination 
point on 13  of the  26 telephone  numbers.17  Our  investigation 
also revealed that Opticom failed to provide rates or charges, or 
failed to provide instructions on how to obtain rates or charges, 
on all 26  telephone numbers.18   Based on these  facts, we  find 
that Opticom is apparently liable  for 38 separate violations  of 
the branding requirement of Section  226(b)(1)(A) of the Act  and 
Section 64.703(a)(1)  of  the  Commission's  rules;  and  for  26 
separate  violations  of  the  rate  disclosure  requirements  of 
Section 226(b)(1)(C)(i) of  the Act  and Section  64.703(a)(3)(i) 
and  64.703(a)(4)  of  the  Commission's  rules.   We  note  that 
although we have only proposed forfeitures for the first of  each 
type of violation associated with each access number for a  total 
of  64  violations,  the  calls  made  during  our  investigation 
revealed numerous  (54) additional  violations that  are not  the 
subject of this NAL.

                 IV.          FORFEITURE AMOUNT

     8.   Pursuant  to   the   Commission's   Forfeiture   Policy 
Statement,  the  base  amount  for  violations  of  the  operator 
services  requirements  is   $7,000.19   The  maximum   potential 
forfeiture is  $120,000  for  each  violation.20   Based  on  the 
criteria in  Section  503(b)(2)(D)  of the  Act  and  the  upward 
adjustment  criteria  in   the  Forfeiture  Policy   Statement,21 
however, we find that a substantial upward adjustment of the base 
forfeiture amount of $7,000 appears  to be warranted because  the 
violations here  appear to  be  egregious and  repeated,  because 
Opticom appears to have  realized substantial economic gain  from 
its misconduct, and because substantial consumer harm appears  to 
have resulted from Opticom's pattern of misconduct.  

     9.   We believe  that Opticom's  practices are  particularly 
egregious for several  reasons.  First, it  appears that  Opticom 
has willfully  and  deliberately  devised a  scheme  repeated  on 
numerous access numbers intended  to mislead unwitting  consumers 
into  using  their  operator  services  while  the  consumer   is 
attempting to  dial  another OSP.   For  example, if  a  consumer 
trying  to  dial  1-800-CALLATT  misdials  by  one  number,  that 
customer will  reach  Opticom  instead  of  AT&T.   The  consumer 
remains unaware  that he  or she  has misdialed  because  Opticom 
fails  to  identify  itself.   We  believe  that  in  using  such 
deceptive means  to  obtain the  consumer's  business,  Opticom's 
practices are  analogous  to  slamming and  should  be  penalized 
accordingly.22  The consumer is even further left in the dark  by 
not being able to obtain  rate information that is essential  for 
consumers who  wish to  make informed  choices in  a  competitive 
telecommunications market.   This  is particularly  egregious  in 
light  of  the   fact  that   the  rates   Opticom  charges   are 
significantly higher  than  the industry  average.   We  believe, 
therefore, that Opticom realizes a substantial economic gain from 
these practices.   Moreover,  it  appears  that  these  misdialed 
numbers,  such  as  1-800-COOLECT   or  1-800-FONCALT,  are   not 
advertised as a means of reaching Opticom.  Therefore, it appears 
that Opticom's only  customers are  those who make  a mistake  in 
attempting to dial another OSP's access code.

     10.  Furthermore, while both parties  to a collect call  are 
involved in  making choices  regarding whether  to use  an  OSP's 
services, we believe that it  is particularly troubling that  the 
called party, the  party that ultimately  incurs the charges  for 
the call, is not  able to obtain the  rates before accepting  the 
call.  Many consumers, reluctant to refuse a call from a relative 
or loved one for  fear of an emergency,  are therefore forced  to 
enter unwittingly into an  agreement to pay significantly  higher 
rates than they would otherwise  pay by accepting such a  collect 
call, and Opticom reaps the benefits of such higher rates. 

     11.  Accordingly,  after  applying  the  Forfeiture   Policy 
Statement and  statutory  factors  to the  facts  before  us,  we 
conclude that an $80,000  forfeiture is apparently warranted  for 
each  of  the   64  violations  of   Sections  226(b)(1)(A)   and 
(b)(1)(C)(i)   of    the   Act    and   Sections    64.703(a)(1), 
64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4)  of the rules,  resulting in  a 
total proposed forfeiture amount of  $5,120,000.  



                 V.             ORDERING CLAUSES

     12.  Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of the Act,  47 U.S.C.  503(b),  and Section 1.80 of  the 
Commission's Rules, 47  C.F.R.  1.80,  One Call  Communications, 
Inc.  is  hereby  NOTIFIED  of  its  APPARENT  LIABILITY  FOR   A 
FORFEITURE in the  amount of $5,120,000  for willful or  repeated 
violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the  Act, 
47   U.S.C.      226(b)(1)(A),   (b)(1)(C)(i),   and   Sections 
64.703(a)(1),   64.703(a)(3)(i),   and   64.703(a)(4)   of    the 
Commission's rules, 47  C.F.R.  64.703(a)(1),  64.703(a)(3)(i),  
64.703(a)(4).   The   amount  specified   was  determined   after 
consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act, 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D), and the guidelines  enumerated 
in the Forfeiture Policy Statement.

     13.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections  1.80(f)(3) 
and  1.80(h)   of  the   Commission's   Rules,  that   One   Call 
Communications, Inc., within thirty days  of the date of  release 
of this Notice of Apparent  Liability, SHALL PAY the full  amount 
of the proposed  forfeiture23 OR  SHALL FILE  a written  response 
showing why  the proposed  forfeiture should  be reduced  or  not 
imposed.24  

     14.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that  a copy of  this Notice  of 
Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture  SHALL  BE SENT  by  certified 
mail, return receipt requested,  to One Call Communications,  Inc 
d/b/a Opticom at 801 Congressional Blvd., Carmel, IN  46032.     


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Marlene H. Dortch
                              Secretary
                         APPENDIX

                  OPTICOM OSP VIOLATIONS - 2002


                       1 (800) CALLL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)*
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                         1 (800) COLLETC
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                        1 (800) BELLOSUTH
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) CAALL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) BBELLSOUTH
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) YOU - SAVV
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) CALL - ATL
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                         1 (800) COLLACT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) BELLS0OUTH
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) CLLL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                        1 (800) ONE-DIMM
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6



* Denotes two violations on that particular date.  

                       1 (800) CA66 - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6 

                       1 (800) 3ALL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                        1 (800) CAALLGTE
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) CAL0 - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X), 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                         1 (800) FAIRCLL 
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6

                       1 (800) CALL - AOT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6

                       1 (800) CALL - AT0
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                         1 (800) COLLEET
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                        1 (800) FAIRRCALL
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) CLAA - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) C1LL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                         1 (800) FONCALT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6






                         1 (800) COILECT
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6

                        1 (800) FFAIRCALL
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X), 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6

                       1 (800) CALA - ATT 
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at 
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR  64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to 
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6


_________________________

1 Opticom is located at  801 Congressional Boulevard, Carmel,  IN  
46032.
2  47  U.S.C.     226(b)(1)(A),  (b)(1)(C)(i);  47  C.F.R.    
64.703(a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4).   Our action in  this Notice  of 
Apparent  Liability   (``NAL'')   does   not   preclude   further 
enforcement action.   The  staff  is  continuing  to  investigate 
Opticom's practices to determine whether they violate the Act and 
our rules in other respects. 
3  ``Operator  services''  are  defined   by  the  Act  and   the 
Commission's rules as ``any interstate telecommunications service 
initiated  from  an  aggregator  location  that  includes,  as  a 
component, any  automatic or  live assistance  to a  consumer  to 
arrange for  billing or  completion, or  both, of  an  interstate 
telephone  call  through  a  method  other  than:  (1)  automatic 
completion with  billing to  the telephone  from which  the  call 
originated; or (2) completion through an access code used by  the 
consumer, with billing to an account previously established  with 
the carrier by the consumer.''  47 U.S.C.  226(a)(7)(A)-(B);  47 
C.F.R.   64.708(i)(1)-(2),  (l).  An  ``aggregator''  is  ``any 
person that,  in the  ordinary course  of its  operations,  makes 
telephones available to the public  or to transient users of  its 
premises, for  interstate telephone  calls  using a  provider  of 
operator  services.''   47  U.S.C.    226(a)(2);  47  C.F.R.    
64.708(b).
4  47  U.S.C.    226(b)(1)(A),  (b)(1)(C)(i);   47  C.F.R.    
64.703(a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4).
5 Complaint No. IC-02-G31616, dated January 11, 2002, from Brenda 
Jackson.
6 Id.
7 Complaint No. IC-02-N70174, dated March 22, 2002, from  Cheryle 
Creech.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 47 U.S.C.  226(b)(1)(A);  47 C.F.R.  64.703(a)(1).
11 47 C.F.R.  64.708(f).
12 47 C.F.R.  64.703(a)(3)(i). 
13 See  47 C.F.R.    64.703(a)(3)(i), 64.708(f);  Amendment  of 
Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Providers and Call 
Aggregators, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making, 11 FCC Rcd 4532, 4541 (1996).
14 47 C.F.R.  64.703(a)(4).  
15 Id.
16 See Appendix.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Forfeiture Policy Statement and  Amendment of Section 1.80  of 
the Rules to Incorporate Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 
12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17097 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).
20 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 Debt Collection  Improvement Act  of 
1996 (DCIA)  requires,  however, that  civil  monetary  penalties 
assessed by  the federal  government  be adjusted  for  inflation 
based on the formula outlined in  the DCIA.  See Pub L. No.  104-
134,   31001,  110 Stat.  1321  (1996).  The  current  statutory 
maxima  pursuant  to  Section   503(b)(2)(B)  are  $120,000   and 
$1,200,000 for individual  violations and continuing  violations, 
respectively.   See  47  U.S.C.    503(b)(2)(B);   47  C.F.R.   
1.80(b)(2), (5);  see  also Amendment of  Section 1.80(b) of  the 
Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect 
Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000).  
21 47 U.S.C.   503(b)(2)(D);  47 C.F.R.   1.80(b)(4); see  also 
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01. 
22  Slamming  is  the  unauthorized  change  of  a   subscriber's 
preferred carrier.  Section  258 of  the Act, as  amended by  the 
Telecommunications   Act    of   1996,    states   that    ``[n]o 
telecommunications carrier shall 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 
verification procedures as the  Commission shall prescribe.''  47 
U.S.C.  258.  The Commission has  used a base amount of  $80,000 
per violation for slamming involving forged letters of agency,  a 
deceptive practice analogous to that at issue in this case.  See, 
e.g., Amer-I-Net Services  Corporation, Order  of Forfeiture,  15 
FCC  Rcd   3118   (2000);   see   also   Brittan   Communications 
International Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 4852 (2000).

23 The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order 
drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.  
Opticom should include the reference ``NAL/Acct. No. 
200232170005'' on its 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.

24 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f)(3), (h).  Send or mail any written 
responses regarding the reasons why the forfeiture should be 
reduced or not imposed to Federal Communications Commission, 
Enforcement Bureau, Telecommunications Consumers Division, 445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554, ATTN: NAL/Acct. No. 
200232170005.  Any written response should focus on the 
mitigating factors outlined in the Forfeiture Policy Statement 
and Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act.