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                 )
                                )
AT&T Corporation                 )
                                )    File No. EB-03-TC-020
                                )
Apparent Liability for           )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332170008
Forfeiture                       )    FRN: 0006380976
                                )
                                )


           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted:  October 30, 2003           Released:  November 3, 
2003                                    

By the Commission:

                   I.   INTRODUCTION

            1. In  this   Notice   of  Apparent   Liability   for 
Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find  that AT&T Corporation  (``AT&T'') 
apparently   willfully    or    repeatedly    violated    section 
64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's rules2 by making 78  telephone 
solicitations to  29  residential  telephone  customers  who  had 
previously asked not to  receive such calls.  Upon our review  of 
the  facts   and   circumstances   surrounding   these   apparent 
violations,  we  find  that  AT&T  is  apparently  liable  for  a 
forfeiture in the amount  of $10,000 for  each of 78  violations, 
for a total of $780,000.  

               II.       BACKGROUND

A.  Summary

2.     In   1991,  Congress   enacted  the   Telephone   Consumer 
Protection Act (``TCPA'') to protect consumers from unwanted  and 
unsolicited telemarketing, among other things.3   Congress  found 
that

          [u]nsolicited telemarketing ... all too frequently  ... 
          represents more of a nuisance than an aid to  commerce.  
          Whether an individual or a machine is on the other  end 
          of the line,  consumers find unsolicited  telemarketing 
          calls an  intrusive,  often  frustrating,  invasion  of 
          their privacy.... The expert testimony, data, and legal 
          analyses comprising the  Committee's record, and  broad 
          support of  consumers,  state regulators,  and  privacy 
          advocates clearly evidence that unsolicited  commercial 
          telemarketing calls  are  a widespread  problem  and  a 
          federal  regulatory  solution  is  needed  to   protect 
          residential telephone subscriber privacy rights.4

As  a  linchpin  of  the  TCPA's  protective  measures,  Congress 
required the Commission to adopt  rules ``concerning the need  to 
protect residential  telephone  subscribers'  privacy  rights  to 
avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they  object.''5  
Responding to  the statutory  mandate to  balance the  legitimate 
commercial interests inherent in  telemarketing with the  privacy 
interests of residential  telephone subscribers, the  Commission, 
in 1992, adopted section 64.1200(e) of the rules to require  that 
any entity engaged in  telephone solicitation maintain a  Do-Not-
Call list to record  residential telephone subscribers'  requests 
not to receive  future solicitations from  that entity.6   During 
the time relevant to this case, section 64.1200(e) required  that 
entities record  each  Do-Not-Call  request  ``at  the  time  the 
request is made''  and honor such  requests for a  period of  ten 
years.7   The  Commission further  elucidated consumers'  Do-Not-
Call rights in 1999, finding  that companies must honor each  Do-
Not-Call request on a household-wide basis so that one  household 
member's instruction to place a residential telephone number on a 
company's Do-Not-Call list requires  the company to refrain  from 
making solicitation calls to  anyone at that number.8   Moreover, 
in July 2003,  the Commission adopted  new rules that  supplement 
the company-specific Do-Not-Call system  with a National  Do-Not-
Call  Registry   that  is   maintained  by   the  Federal   Trade 
Commission.9

                3.    The   Enforcement  Bureau  initiated   this 
proceeding based on its regular review of consumer complaint data 
involving telephone  solicitations.   The  Bureau  found  a  high 
volume of  complaints involving  AT&T, a  nationwide provider  of 
long distance service that markets  some of its services  through 
telephone solicitations.  During  the period  from December  2002 
through August 2003, for  example, the Consumer and  Governmental 
Affairs Bureau received 360 complaints concerning AT&T's  Do-Not-
Call practices, more than for any other company.  As part of  its 
investigation of these complaints,  the Enforcement Bureau  staff 
sent five separate letters of inquiry to AT&T inquiring into  142 
of the  complaints of  customers who  allegedly requested  to  be 
placed  on  AT&T's  Do-Not-Call  list,  and  seeking  information 
concerning AT&T's telemarketing procedures, its monitoring of Do-
Not-Call  requests,  and  its  customer  records.10  AT&T   filed 
responses to each letter of inquiry.11 

               4.     Sixty-two of  the violations that form  the 
basis  of  this  NAL  are  supported  by  complaints  and   sworn 
declarations from 19 consumers stating  that they were called  by 
an AT&T telemarketer  who was  marketing local  or long  distance 
service, that they requested that  they not be called again,  and 
that they were nevertheless called again by AT&T.  AT&T responded 
to each  of these  complaints separately.   These complaints  are 
further  described  below.   A  compilation  of  the   violations 
reported by these consumers is included in the attached  Appendix 
A.  Sixteen additional  violations involving  10 other  consumers 
that form the basis of this  NAL are based on AT&T's records  and 
responses  to  the  letters   of  inquiry  described  above.    A 
compilation of these complaints is  also provided in Appendix  A.  
Because  AT&T  has  asked  for  confidential  treatment  of   its 
responses to the  letters of  inquiry, and  that request  remains 
pending, we are keeping Appendix A confidential at this time. 

B.  Description of Consumer Complaints
       
               5.   All of  the consumers  whose complaints  form 
the basis of  this NAL  filed complaints alleging  that AT&T  had 
failed to  comply with  their requests  that they  not be  called 
again.  In  support   of  these  complaints,   they  also   filed 
declarations.  For example, Susan Richardson stated that on  July 
12,  1999,  she   received  a   telephone  call   from  an   AT&T 
telemarketer, and asked  that her telephone  number be placed  on 
AT&T's Do-Not-Call list.  AT&T subsequently called her, marketing 
its long distance and  local services, on  November 2, 2002,  and 
March  26,  2003.   After  the  filing  of  her  complaint,   Ms. 
Richardson received  a  third call  from  AT&T on  May  8,  2003.  
Regarding the May 8 call,  Ms. Richardson provided the  following 
detail:

      The  caller   identified  herself  as   Cathy  Reagan.    I 
      requested the telephone  number that she  was calling  from 
      and she  provided 800/288-2747.  At  the time I  was on  my 
      downstairs  telephone  which  does  not  have  Caller   ID, 
      however, when  I  went upstairs,  the telephone  that  does 
      have Caller ID revealed that this call had originated  from 
      770/857-6850.  I  also noticed  that on  the same  day,  at 
      7:01  p.m., I  had  received  another call  from  the  same 
      number.

      ...The Caller ID equipment revealed ``770/857-6850 AT&T 
      Consumer'' for the call received on May 8, 2003.12  On 
      June 20, I provided to the FCC, photographs of my Caller 
      ID equipment, reflecting the identity of the May 8 
      calls.13  

               6.   Similarly, Amy Dickinson stated that she  was 
called in August 2002 by  an AT&T telemarketer about AT&T's  long 
distance service and at that time asked that her telephone number 
be placed on AT&T's Do-Not-Call list.  She nevertheless  received 
calls from AT&T on January 2 and 3, 2003, advertising their  long 
distance service.''14

               7.   Another consumer, Jeffrey  Chen, stated  that 
in February 2002, he and his father, David Chen, received a  call 
from an AT&T  telemarketer marketing its  long distance  services 
and at that time he asked  that their telephone number be  placed 
on AT&T's Do-Not-Call list.  Mr. Chen stated that the number  was 
called by an AT&T  telemarketer on October  22, 2002.   Mr.  Chen 
then described another call received from AT&T after he filed his 
initial complaint:
          
      In February 2003, I again submitted to the Federal 
      Communications Commission information that we received 
      another telephone solicitation call from AT&T on February 
      24, 2003, at 6:20 p.m.  This call was received despite a 
      (1) previous do-not-call request and (2) a November 15, 
      2002 letter from Margaret R. Berry, District Manager, 
      AT&T, stating that the telephone number was going to be 
      added to the do not call list within 30 days.15
               

                                   III.      DISCUSSION

A.       Apparent Violations Evidenced in the Record 

              8.    During the time  period in question,  Section 
64.1200(e) of the Commission's rules required that

      if a person or  entity making a telephone solicitation  (or 
      on whose behalf a solicitation is made) receives a  request 
      from a  residential  telephone subscriber  not  to  receive 
      calls from  that person  or entity,  the person  or  entity 
      must record  the request  and place  the subscriber's  name 
      and telephone number  on the do-not-call  list at the  time 
      the request  is made.   If such  requests are  recorded  or 
      maintained by a  party other than the  person or entity  on 
      whose  behalf the  solicitation  is  made,  the  person  or 
      entity on  whose behalf the  solicitation is  made will  be 
      liable  for   any  failures   to  honor   the   do-not-call 
      request.16

The rules  also required  that a  Do-Not-Call request  had to  be 
honored for a ten-year period.  The Commission has stated that  a 
company's current customer  can make  an enforceable  Do-Not-Call 
request.17

              9.    AT&T  apparently  did  not  comply  with  the 
requirement that  it place  consumers' names  on the  Do-Not-Call 
list and honor their requests within a reasonable time.  We  need 
not determine in this instance precisely how soon after receiving 
a Do-Not-Call  request  a  carrier  must  record  and  honor  the 
consumer's preference.  AT&T's own  policy, which  is  supposedly 
mailed to  all consumers  who requested  that they  be placed  on 
AT&T's Do-Not-Call list, specified that  they would be placed  on 
the list within 30 days of their request.18  We find that  AT&T's 
own 30-day requirement  appears to represent  the outer limit  of 
reasonableness, and it appears that  AT&T did not meet even  this 
standard.19  

             10.    We find that the complaints and  declarations 
of the complainants  whose declarations are  described above,  as 
well as the remainder of  the complainants listed in Appendix  A, 
are sufficiently  persuasive  to  support  a  finding  that  AT&T 
apparently made telephone  calls to  these customers  30 days  or 
more after they had requested to be placed on AT&T's  Do-Not-Call 
list.  First,  the declarations  submitted by  the consumers,  as 
shown in the examples cited above, were very specific, citing the 
date, time, purpose, and sometimes  the name of the  telemarketer 
making the call.   Second, as shown  in confidential Appendix  A, 
AT&T's responses  to the  Letters of  Inquiry indicate  that  the 
claims of at least some of these consumers are supported by  AT&T 
records.  Further, the monitoring conducted by AT&T, described in 
Appendix A, confirms that not all requests were honored.   Third, 
the photograph submitted by Susan Richardson apparently  confirms 
that the absence of an entry on AT&T records does not support  an 
inference that  the  calls  were  not made.   We  find  that  the 
concrete and specific  allegations of violations  of the  Do-Not-
Call rule, together  with the evidence  showing that AT&T  either 
failed to comply with Do-Not-Call requests or that AT&T's records 
are  demonstrably  incomplete,  warrant  a  finding  of  apparent 
liability.
 
             11.    In  addition,  as  detailed  in  Appendix  A, 
AT&T's admissions and records show that since December 2002 on 16 
occasions AT&T called 10 other customers who had previously asked 
to be placed on  AT&T's Do-Not-Call list at  least 30 days  after 
they had made the request.
 
B.      Forfeiture Amount

              12.   We conclude that AT&T apparently willfully or 
repeatedly  violated  the   Commission's  rules   by  making   78 
solicitation calls  to  29  consumers who  had  made  Do-Not-Call 
requests. Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture is warranted against 
AT&T for its apparent willful  or repeated violations of  section 
64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's rules.

              13.   As adjusted by statute, Section 503(b) of the 
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 by  a 
common carrier.20 In  exercising such authority,  we are 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." 21

              14.   The Commission's Forfeiture Policy  Statement 
does not establish  a base  forfeiture amount  for violating  the 
prohibition on making  telephone solicitations  to customers  who 
had previously asked  to be  placed on a  Do-Not-Call list.22  We 
have, however, imposed a $10,000 forfeiture for each  unsolicited 
facsimile advertisement where  the consumer previously  requested 
that the  sender  cease its  unlawful  conduct and  refrain  from 
faxing additional unsolicited advertisements.23  We conclude that 
making telephone solicitations where the consumer has  previously 
asked the telemarketer to stop is similar to such an  unsolicited 
facsimile advertising violation. Accordingly,  we believe that  a 
proposed base forfeiture amount of $10,000 per violation in  this 
context is consistent with our previous actions where a  consumer 
has made  a  request  not to  receive  an  unsolicited  facsimile 
advertisement.   In  proposing  this  forfeiture,  we  apply  the 
$10,000 amount to each of the apparent violations associated with 
the 78 calls  that AT&T  apparently made to  a consumer's  number 
after the 29 consumers listed in Appendix A requested that  their 
telephone numbers be placed on AT&T's Do-Not-Call list.

                                 IV.   CONCLUSION  AND   ORDERING 
CLAUSES

      15. We have determined  that AT&T  apparently committed  78 
separate violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's 
rules by failing  to adhere to  our Do-Not-Call requirements,  as 
described  above.   We  have  further  determined  that  AT&T  is 
apparently liable  in  the amount  of  $10,000 for  each  of  the 
violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi)  of the Commission's  rules, 
for a total of $780,000.

               16.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant   to 
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,  47 
U.S.C.  503(b), and Section  1.80 of the Commission's rules,  47 
C.F.R.  1.80,  that AT&T  Corporation IS HEREBY  NOTIFIED of  an 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in  the amount of $780,000  for 
willful or  repeated  violations  of  Section  64.1200(e)(vi)  as 
described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A.24

              17.   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  of  Apparent 
Liability, AT&T  SHALL  PAY  the  full  amount  of  the  proposed 
forfeiture25 OR SHALL  FILE a response  showing why the  proposed 
forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced.

              18.   The Commission will not consider reducing  or 
canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay 
unless the petitioner  submits: (1) federal  tax returns for  the 
most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements  prepared 
according to generally accepted accounting practices  (``GAAP''); 
or (3)  some  other  reliable and  objective  documentation  that 
accurately reflects  the petitioner's  current financial  status.  
Any claim  of inability  to pay  must specifically  identify  the 
basis for the claim by  reference to the financial  documentation 
submitted.

              19.   Requests for payment  of the  full amount  of 
this Notice  of  Apparent  Liability under  an  installment  plan 
should be  sent to:  Chief,  Revenue and  Receivables  Operations 
Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554.26

              20.   Under the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002, Pub L. No. 107-198,  116 Stat. 729 (June 28, 2002),  the 
FCC is engaged in a two-year tracking process regarding the  size 
of entities involved in forfeitures.   If you qualify as a  small 
entity and  if you  wish to  be  treated as  a small  entity  for 
tracking purposes, please  so certify  to us  within thirty  (30) 
days of this  NAL, either in  your response  to the NAL  or in  a 
separate filing to  be sent to  the Telecommunications  Consumers 
Division.   Your  certification  should  indicate  whether   you, 
including your parent  entity and its  subsidiaries, meet one  of 
the definitions  set forth  in  the list  provided by  the  FCC's 
Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) set  forth 
in Attachment  A  of this  Notice  of Apparent  Liability.   This 
information will  be  used  for  tracking  purposes  only.   Your 
response or  failure to  respond to  this question  will have  no 
effect on your  rights and responsibilities  pursuant to  Section 
503(b)  of  the  Communications  Act.   If  you  have   questions 
regarding any of the information contained in Appendix B,  please 
contact OCBO at (202) 418-0990.

                        21.   IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED  that copies  of  this 
Notice of  Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture  SHALL BE  SENT  by 
certified mail  to AT&T  Communications,  Inc., 295  North  Maple 
Avenue, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                                   Marlene H. Dortch
                              Secretary                           APPENDIX B

          FCC List of Small Entities

          As described below, a ``small entity'' may be a small 
          organization, 
          a small governmental jurisdiction, or a small business.

         (1)  Small Organization 
Any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and 
operated and 
is not dominant in its field.

  
(2)  Small Governmental Jurisdiction
Governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, 
school districts, or 
special districts, with a population of less than fifty 
thousand.


(3)  Small Business
Any business concern that is independently owned and operated 
and 
is not dominant in its field, and meets the pertinent size 
criterion described below.
  

       Industry Type         Description of Small Business 
                                     Size Standards
                 Cable Services or Systems
                            Special Size Standard - 
Cable Systems                Small Cable Company has 400,000 
                            Subscribers Nationwide or Fewer
Cable and Other Program 
Distribution                 $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts 
                                        or Less

Open Video Systems 
        Common Carrier Services and Related Entities
Wireline Carriers and 
Service providers 
                                1,500 Employees or Fewer
Local Exchange Carriers, 
Competitive Access 
Providers, Interexchange 
Carriers, Operator Service 
Providers, Payphone 
Providers, and Resellers


Note:  With the exception of Cable Systems, all size 
standards are expressed in either millions of dollars or 
number of employees and are generally the average annual 
receipts or the average employment of a firm.  Directions for 
calculating average annual receipts and average employment of 
a firm can be found in 
13 CFR 121.104 and 13 CFR 121.106, respectively.





                   International Services
International Broadcast 
Stations






                            $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts 
                                        or Less
International Public Fixed 
Radio (Public and Control 
Stations)
Fixed Satellite 
Transmit/Receive Earth 
Stations
Fixed Satellite Very Small 
Aperture Terminal Systems
Mobile Satellite Earth 
Stations
Radio Determination 
Satellite Earth Stations
Geostationary Space Stations
Non-Geostationary Space 
Stations
Direct Broadcast Satellites
Home Satellite Dish Service
                    Mass Media Services
Television Services

                             $12 Million in Annual Receipts 
                                        or Less
Low Power Television 
Services and Television 
Translator Stations
TV Auxiliary, Special 
Broadcast and Other Program 
Distribution Services
Radio Services
                            $6 Million in Annual Receipts or 
                                          Less
Radio Auxiliary, Special 
Broadcast and Other Program 
Distribution Services
Multipoint Distribution      Auction Special Size Standard -
Service                      Small Business is less than $40M 
                            in annual gross revenues for 
                            three preceding years
          Wireless and Commercial Mobile Services
Cellular Licensees
                                1,500 Employees or Fewer
220 MHz Radio Service - 
Phase I Licensees
220 MHz Radio Service -      Auction special size standard -
Phase II Licensees           Small Business is average gross 
                            revenues of $15M or less for the 
                            preceding three years (includes 
                            affiliates and controlling 
                            principals)
                            Very Small Business is average 
                            gross revenues of $3M or less 
                            for the preceding three years 
                            (includes affiliates and 
                            controlling principals)
700 MHZ Guard Band Licensees


Private and Common Carrier 
Paging
Broadband Personal 
Communications Services          1,500 Employees or Fewer
(Blocks A, B, D, and E)
Broadband Personal            Auction special size standard -
Communications Services      Small Business is $40M or less 
(Block C)                    in annual gross revenues for 
                            three previous calendar years
                            Very Small Business is average 
                            gross revenues of $15M or less 
                            for the preceding three calendar 
                            years (includes affiliates and 
                            persons or entities that hold 
                            interest in such entity and 
                            their affiliates)
Broadband Personal 
Communications Services 
(Block F)
Narrowband Personal 
Communications Services


Rural Radiotelephone Service     1,500 Employees or Fewer
Air-Ground Radiotelephone 
Service
800 MHz Specialized Mobile   Auction special size standard -
Radio                        Small Business is $15M or less 
                            average annual gross revenues 
                            for three preceding calendar 
                            years
900 MHz Specialized Mobile 
Radio
Private Land Mobile Radio        1,500 Employees or Fewer
Amateur Radio Service                      N/A
Aviation and Marine Radio 
Service                          1,500 Employees or Fewer
Fixed Microwave Services
                            Small Business is 1,500 
Public Safety Radio Services employees or less
                            Small Government Entities has 
                            population of less than 50,000 
                            persons
Wireless Telephony and 
Paging and Messaging             1,500 Employees or Fewer
Personal Radio Services                    N/A
Offshore Radiotelephone          1,500 Employees or Fewer
Service
Wireless Communications      Small Business is $40M or less 
Services                     average annual gross revenues 
                            for three preceding years
                            Very Small Business is average 
                            gross revenues of $15M or less 
                            for the preceding three years 

39 GHz Service
                            Auction special size standard 
                            (1996) -
Multipoint Distribution      Small Business is $40M or less 
Service                      average  annual gross revenues 
                            for three preceding calendar 
                            years
                            Prior to Auction -
                            Small Business has annual 
                            revenue of $12.5M or less
Multichannel Multipoint 
Distribution Service         $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts 
                                        or Less
Instructional Television 
Fixed Service
                            Auction special size standard 
                            (1998) -
Local Multipoint             Small Business is $40M or less 
Distribution Service         average annual gross revenues 
                            for three preceding years
                            Very Small Business is average 
                            gross revenues of $15M or less 
                            for the preceding three years 
                            First  Auction special size 
                            standard (1994) -
                            Small Business is an entity 
                            that, together with its 
                            affiliates, has no more than a 
218-219 MHZ Service          $6M net worth and, after federal 
                            income taxes (excluding 
                            carryover losses) has no more 
                            than $2M in annual profits each 
                            year for the previous two years
                            New Standard - 
                            Small Business is average gross 
                            revenues of $15M or less for the 
                            preceding three years (includes 
                            affil iates and persons or 
                            entities that hold interest in 
                            such entity and their 
                            affiliates)
                            Very Small Business is average 
                            gross revenues of $3M or less 
                            for the preceding three years 
                            (includes affiliates and persons 
                            or entities that hold interest 
                            in such entity and their 
                            affiliates)
Satellite Master Antenna 
Television Systems           $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts 
                                        or Less
24 GHz - Incumbent Licensees     1,500 Employees or Fewer
24 GHz - Future Licensees    Small Business is average gross 
                            revenues of $15M or less for the 
                            preceding three years (includes 
                            affiliates and persons or 
                            entities that hold interest in 
                            such entity and their 
                            affiliates)
                            Very Small Business is average 
                            gross revenues of $3M or less 
                            for the preceding three years 
                            (includes affiliates and persons 
                            or entities that hold interest 
                            in such entity and their 
                            affiliates)
                       Miscellaneous
On-Line Information Services  $18 Million in Annual Receipts 
                                        or Less
Radio and Television 
Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment          750 Employees or Fewer
Manufacturers
Audio and Video Equipment 
Manufacturers
Telephone Apparatus 
Manufacturers (Except            1,000 Employees or Fewer
Cellular)
Medical Implant Device            500 Employees or Fewer
Manufacturers
Hospitals                     $29 Million in Annual Receipts 
                                        or Less
Nursing Homes                $11.5 Million in Annual Receipts 
                                        or Less
Hotels and Motels            $6 Million in Annual Receipts or 
                                          Less
Tower Owners                 (See Lessee's Type of Business)

_________________________

1 See  47 U.S.C.   503(b)(4)(A).  The Commission  has  authority 
under Section  503 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.  Id.  503(b)(1)(B)  
Section  503  provides  that  the  Commission  must  assess  such 
penalties through  the  use  of  a  written  notice  of  apparent 
liability or notice of opportunity for hearing. Id.   503(b)(3), 
(4).

2 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(e)  (1995).  Except where otherwise  noted, 
all references to the Commission's rules shall be to the rules as 
they existed at the time of the acts or omissions in question.

3 The TCPA is codified at 47 U.S.C.  227.
4 H.R. Rep.  No. 102-317,  102nd Cong.  at 18  (1991);  see  also 
comments of Senator Pressler:
     Many consumers are simply tired of the nuisance of telephone 
     solicitations.  Information age technologies,  combined with 
     the telephone,  now  give modern  door-to-door  salesmen  an 
     unrestricted ability  to invade  the privacy  of our  homes.  
     Unlike other mediums of communications media, the  telephone 
     commands our  instant attention.   Junk mail  can be  thrown 
     away.   Television  commercials  can  be  turned  off.   The 
     telephone demands to be answered.
S. Rep. No. 102-177, 102nd Cong. at 19 (1991).
5 47 U.S.C.  227(c)(1).
6 Rules  and  Regulations  Implementing  the  Telephone  Consumer 
Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, Report and Order,  7 
FCC Rcd 8752 (1992).
7 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(e)(2)(iii), (vi).
8 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298-99 (1999).
9 Rules  and  Regulations  Implementing  the  Telephone  Consumer 
Protection Act of 1991, CG  Docket No. 02-278, Report and  Order, 
18 FCC  Rcd  14,014 (2003)  (TCPA  Revisions Report  and  Order), 
petition  for  review  pending  sub  nom.  Mainstream   Marketing 
Services, Inc. v. FCC, No. 03-9511 (10th Cir.).  These rules were 
not in effect at the time of the acts or omissions in question.
10 Letter from  Colleen K.  Heitkamp, Chief,   Telecommunications 
Consumers Division, Enforcement  Bureau. FCC, to  Michael F.  Del 
Casino, AT&T (Apr.  1, 2003);  Letter from  Colleen K.  Heitkamp, 
Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau. 
FCC, to Michael F. Del Casino, AT&T (Apr. 10, 2003); Letter  from 
Colleen  K.   Heitkamp,  Chief,    Telecommunications   Consumers 
Division, Enforcement Bureau. FCC, to Michael F. Del Casino, AT&T 
(Apr.  29,  2003);  Letter  from  Colleen  K.  Heitkamp,   Chief,  
Telecommunications Consumers Division,  Enforcement Bureau.  FCC, 
to Michael F. Del Casino, AT&T (June 2, 2003).
11 Letter from  Peter H.  Jacoby, AT&T,  to Peter  G. Wolfe,  FCC 
(Apr. 25, 2003); Letter from Peter  H. Jacoby, AT&T, to Peter  G. 
Wolfe, FCC (May 19,  2003); Letter from Seth  S. Gross, AT&T,  to 
Peter G. Wolfe, FCC (July 21,  2003); Letter from Seth S.  Gross, 
AT&T, to Peter G. Wolfe, FCC (Aug. 29, 2003); Letter from Seth S. 
Gross, AT&T, to Peter  G. Wolfe, FCC (Sept.  5, 2003).  All  AT&T 
responses contain requests that the material provided be withheld 
from public disclosure.  AT&T later withdrew its request  insofar 
as it applied to its  Do-Not-Call policy and confirmatory  letter 
that are sent to all customers  that request to be placed on  its 
Do-Not-Call list. Letter  from Peter  Jacoby, AT&T,  to Peter  G. 
Wolfe, FCC, dated May 19, 2003.
12 Our staff has ascertained that the number is the number of  an 
AT&T telemarketing location.
13 Declaration of Susan Richardson, dated August 26, 2003.
14 Declaration of Amy Dickinson, dated May 14, 2003.  
15 Declaration of Jeffery Chen, dated August 7, 2003.
16 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(e).  
17 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone  Consumer 
Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8770 n. 
63, 8766 n.  47 (1992); see  also H.R. Rep.  102-317, 1st  Sess., 
102nd Cong. (1991) at 15;  see also Charvat v. Dispatch  Consumer 
Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 505, 769 N.E.2d  829 (2002).
18 Letter from Peter Jacoby, AT&T, to Peter G. Wolfe, FCC,  dated 
April 25, 2003.
19 The Commission's revised  telemarketing rules, which were  not 
in effect at  the time  in question, now  require that  telephone 
numbers be placed on company-specific Do-Not-Call lists within 30 
days of the do-not-call request. TCPA Revisions Report and Order, 
18 FCC Rcd at 14069; 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(d)(3)(2003).
20  47  U.S.C.    503(b).   Pursuant  to  the  Debt   Collection 
Improvement Act of  1996, P.L. 104-134,  110 Stat. 1321-358,  the 
statutory maximum  amount  for  a  forfeiture  penalty  shall  be 
adjusted for  inflation  at least  once  every four  years.   The 
current  maximum,  as   adjusted,  is  $120,000.   47  C.F.R.    
1.80(b)(5).
21 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

22 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment  of 
Section  1.80  of  the   Rules  to  Incorporate  the   Forfeiture 
Guidelines, Report and  Order, 12  FCC Rcd  17087 (1997),  recon. 
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).
23 Carolina Liquidators, Inc.,15 FCC Rcd 16837, 16842 (2000);  15 
FCC  Rcd  21775  (2000).   We  note,  however,  that  unsolicited 
facsimile advertising is unlawful under section 64.1200(a)(3)  of 
our rules  even  when a  consumer  has not  requested  that  such 
transmissions be halted.
24 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(e). 

25 The forfeiture amount should be  paid by check or money  order 
drawn to  the order  of  the Federal  Communications  Commission.  
Reference should  be  made on  AT&T's  check or  money  order  to 
``NAL/Acct. No. 200332170008''  Such  remittances must be  mailed 
to  Forfeiture  Collection   section,  Finance  Branch,   Federal 
Communications Commission,  P.O.  Box  73482,  Chicago,  Illinois 
60673-7482.
26 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.