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.


                           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
Operator Service Provider        )


     Adopted:  August 21, 2003                                              
     Released:  August 22, 2003

By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement 

     1.   On September 23, 2002, the Commission released a Notice 
of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') against One Call  Communications, 
Inc.,  d/b/a  Opticom  regarding  apparent  non-compliance   with 
Sections 226(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C.  226(b) (``the Act'') and Sections 64.703 et seq. of  the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.703(a), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4).1   On 
October 23,  2003, One  Call  Internet, Inc.  (``OCI'')  formerly 
known as  One  Call Communications,  Inc.  filed a  Response  and 
Motion to Dismiss the Notice of Apparent Liability.2  On  October 
30, 2003,  OCMC, Inc.  (d/b/a ``One  Call Communications,  Inc.'' 
hereinafter ``OCMC'') also filed a response to the NAL.

     2.   The  NAL  alleges  violations   of  the  Act  and   the 
Commission's rules involving calls dialed in May and June of 2002 
to twenty-six  (26) specific  toll-free  access codes.   The  NAL 
tentatively concludes that a forfeiture is warranted for apparent 
violations of  the  requirements which  govern  operator  service 
providers, in  particular,  branding  and failure  to  give  rate 
disclosures to consumers.

     3.   OCI states in its Response  that, on January 31,  2002, 
it entered into  an Asset Purchase  Agreement with OCMC,  whereby 
OCI agreed to transfer  to OCMC all of  the assets used in  OCI's 
telecommunications  business,  subject  to  the  receipt  of  all 
necessary regulatory approvals.  Thereafter, OCI states that OCMC 
provided management services to OCI in order to ensure  continued 
service to  existing  OCI  telecommunications  customers  pending 
regulatory   approvals.    An   application   to   assign   OCI's 
international Section 214 authorization  and to transfer  control 
of OCI's domestic 214 authorization was filed on July 24,  2002.3  
On August  5, 2003  respondents OCI  and OCMC  submitted a  Joint 
Stipulation stating  that both  parties agree  that OCI  has  not 
served, nor does it currently serve, any of the toll-free  access 
codes cited in the NAL.4

     4.   The record,  supplemented  by  the  Joint  Stipulation, 
indicates that OCI did not serve the toll-free access codes cited 
in the NAL at any time during the Investigation.  Accordingly, to 
the extent OCI entered an appearance, it should be dismissed from 
this proceeding.

     5.   This Order has no  impact on our  proposal to assess  a 
forfeiture  against  OCMC,  Inc.,  the  entity  currently   doing 
business as ``One Call  Communications, Inc.,'' ``Opticom,''  and 
``One Call.''  The Commission will address the NAL as it  relates 
to OCMC, Inc. in a separate order.  Nothing herein constitutes  a 
decision with respect to OCMC, Inc.

     6.   Accordingly, IT  IS ORDERED,  pursuant to  sections  1, 
4(i), 4(j),  and 503(b)  of the  Communications Act  of 1934,  as 
amended, 47  U.S.C.   151,  154(i),  154(j), and  503(b),5  and 
Section 1.80(f)(4)  of  the Commission's  rules,6  and  authority 
delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's  rules, 
47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311,7 that the Motion to Dismiss the Notice 
of Apparent Liability with regard  to One Call Internet, Inc.  IS 

     7.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order  shall 
be sent by certified mail,  return receipt requested, to  counsel 
for One Call  Internet, Inc., Steven  A. Augustino, Esq.,  Kelley 
Drye  &  Warren  LLP  ,  1200  19th  Street,  N.W.,  Suite   500, 
Washington, D.C. 20036.


                    Colleen K. Heitkamp
                    Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division
                    Enforcement Bureau

1    See One Call Communications, Inc. d/b/a/ Opticom, Notice  of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 18646 (2002).
2    Response and Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-02-TC-003, filed 
by One Call Internet, Inc., (October 23, 2002) (``Response'').
3See One Call Communications, Inc. and OCMC, Inc. Application  to 
Assign International Section 214  Authorizations and to  Transfer 
Control of Domestic Section 214 Authorization,  ITC-ASG-20020724-
00410  (assignment   of   international   authorization   granted 
September 11, 2002, DA No. 02-2234).  Approval of the transfer of 
control of the domestic Section 214 authorization is pending.
4    See letter from  Steven A.  Augustino, Counsel  to One  Call 
Internet, Inc. to Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief,  Telecommunications 
Consumers Division,  Enforcement Bureau,  Federal  Communications 
Commission, August 5, 2003 (``Joint Stipulation'').
5    47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503(b).
6    47 C.F.R.  1.80(f)(4).
7  47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311.