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                 )
                                )
Business Options, Inc.           )    EB Docket No. 03-85 
                                )    File No. EB-02-TC-151
Order to Show Cause and          )    NAL/Acct. No. 200332170002 
Notice of Opportunity for        )    FRN: 0007179054
Hearing                          )
                                )
                                )


                     ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 
                NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING



   Adopted: March 26, 2003              Released: April 7, 2003

By the Commission:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Order to Show  Cause and Notice of  Opportunity 
for Hearing,  we commence  an  evidentiary hearing  to  determine 
whether: (1) the Commission should revoke the operating authority 
of Business  Options, Inc.  (BOI);1 (2)  BOI and  its  principals 
should be ordered to cease  and desist from any future  provision 
of interstate common carrier  services without the prior  consent 
of the Commission; and (3) a forfeiture against BOI is  warranted 
and, if so, the amount of the forfeiture. 

     2.   As set forth in detail  below, it appears that BOI  may 
have engaged in misrepresentation or lack of candor in  responses 
submitted to the Commission staff to inquiries that were  central 
to an investigation of possible  slamming violations by BOI2  and 
in its application to the Commission for authority to discontinue 
its domestic  interstate  access  and  interstate  long  distance 
service   in    Vermont.3     These   apparent    instances    of 
misrepresentation or  lack of  candor, as  well as  related  rule 
violations, raise serious questions regarding whether BOI and its 
principals are qualified  to be certified  to provide  interstate 
telecommunications services.   The  hearing  will  address  these 
questions, as well as  whether a forfeiture  should be issued  to 
BOI for  violations of  Commission  rules relating  to  slamming, 
discontinuance of service, and carrier registration. 

                         II.  BACKGROUND

             3.     BOI is a reseller of long distance  telephone 
service, located in  Merrillville, Indiana.4  BOI  operates as  a 
common carrier subject to Title II of the Act.  Specifically, BOI 
currently  provides  or  has  provided  resale  interstate   long 
distance telecommunications services to consumers in 46  states.5  
Under the  regulatory  scheme  established by  the  Act  and  the 
Commission's  rules,   BOI  is   classified  as   a   nondominant 
interexchange carrier.6   As  such,  it  is  considered  to  have 
``blanket''  authority   to  operate   domestic  common   carrier 
facilities within the meaning of Section 214 of the Act.7

             4.     After receiving  a  high number  of  consumer 
complaints against BOI,  the Enforcement  Bureau, in  cooperation 
with  the  Maine   Public  Utilities   Commission,  launched   an 
investigation into the consumers'  allegations of slamming.   The 
Maine Public Utilities Commission, which has chosen to administer 
the Commission's  informal slamming  complaint rules,8  forwarded 
information on  BOI's activities  to the  Enforcement Bureau.  On 
November 1,  2002,  Enforcement Bureau  staff  sent a  Letter  of 
Inquiry to BOI  seeking, among  other things,  BOI's response  to 
specific consumer allegations.9  Some of the consumer  complaints 
against BOI that  we received related  to allegedly  unauthorized 
changes in  the complainants'  preferred  carrier to  BOI  which, 
after these  complainants  objected  to  these  changes  and  the 
numbers were restored to their previous carriers, apparently were 
again changed to  BOI without  the  complainants'  authorization.  
The Letter of Inquiry that our  staff sent to BOI and this  Order 
related to these later changes.

             5.     On  September   12,   2002,  BOI   signed   a 
stipulation with  the Vermont  Department  of Public  Service  to 
settle a  proceeding  in which  a  Vermont Public  Service  Board 
Hearing  Officer  concluded   that  BOI   had  violated   Vermont 
regulations by (1) offering services without an approved  tariff; 
(2)  filing  misleading   corporate  registration  reports;   (3) 
engaging in deceptive business practices; (4) failing to  provide 
customers with  a  toll  free  number;  (5)  failing  to  file  a 
discontinuance notice; (6) failing  to provide consumers with  an 
accurate  written  summary  of   their  service  order;  and  (7) 
changing  consumers'  telecommunications  carrier  without  their 
authorization.10  Among  other things,  the stipulation  required 
that BOI initiate the procedure outlined in 47 C.F.R.  63.71 for 
terminating service to Vermont customers who currently were being 
served by BOI.11  On December 20, 2002, BOI mailed an application 
to the Commission for authorization to discontinue its  provision 
of resold interstate long distance service in Vermont on December 
21, 2002 pursuant to section 214(a) of the Act and section  63.71 
of the Commission's rules.12  BOI simultaneously filed a  request 
for waiver of the customer notification requirements set forth in 
Section 63.71(a) of the Commission's rules.  
  
A.     BOI Responses to Commission Inquiries 

            6. The Letter of Inquiry to  BOI of November 1,  2002 
asked a  number  of  questions  concerning  (1)  BOI's  corporate 
structure,  (2)  its  compliance  with  Commission   registration 
requirements under 47  C.F.R.   64.1195, (3) whether  it or  its 
affiliates,  subsidiaries,  or   agents  changed  the   preferred 
carriers of listed complainants after April 1, 2002,  and (4) its 
telemarketing practices.   Among  other  things,  the  Letter  of 
Inquiry asked in Paragraph 3:

     [d]uring the period from April  1, 2002 to the present,  has 
     BOI or any  of its  subsidiaries, affiliates,  or any  other 
     entity acting under BOI's control or as its agent, submitted 
     or executed  an order  to change  the preferred  carrier  as 
     specified in the complaints in Attachment A?  If so: 
       ...
          b. For each affirmative response to Paragraph 3  above, 
          state who  authorized the  change  in service  and  the 
          manner in which the authorization was made and  provide 
          all  documents   and   information   related   to   the 
          authorization.

          c.  For each affirmative response to Paragraph 3 above, 
          describe in  detail  all  steps  taken  to  verify  the 
          consumer's request  to  change  his  or  her  preferred 
          carrier....13 

BOI sent a partial response to  the staff's Letter of Inquiry  on 
December 9, 2002.14  

            7. In its  response to  the  Letter of  Inquiry,  BOI 
asserted that ``[d]uring this period no one representing BOI  has 
changed the preferred carrier as  specified in the complaints  in 
Attachment A....''   It therefore did not provide any  documents, 
including verification  tapes  or other  proof  of  authorization 
related to  the complaints.   BOI also  stated that  in only  one 
instance was it aware of actions of its telemarketers such as are 
described by the complainants cited above.  Further, BOI did  not 
answer several of  the inquiries, including  (1) an inquiry  that 
BOI provide evidence that it  had complied with the  registration 
requirements pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  64.1195, and (2) an  inquiry 
whether BOI  or its  agents found  any instances  since April  1, 
2002,  in  which  BOI  telemarketing  employees  had  changed   a 
consumer's preferred carrier without asking the consumer  whether 
he or  she wanted  to change  the preferred  carrier and  without 
mentioning the name  of Business Options.15   BOI did state  that 
all of its telemarketers were  BOI employees.16  In addition,  in 
response to the inquiry  requesting ``BOI's corporate  structure, 
including a description of each  affiliate of each subsidiary  or 
affiliate..and a  list  of the  officers  and directors  of  each 
affiliated entity,'' BOI  did not  list any  affiliates or  their 
officers or directors.17

B.     Other Responses to Commission Inquiries

     8.          Enforcement Bureau staff sent Letters of Inquiry 
to the  local  exchange  carriers (LECs)  that  serve  the  eight 
complainants listed in Appendix A,18 requesting information about 
whether there had been any preferred carrier changes since  April 
1, 2002  for  these complainants.19   The  responses to  the  LEC 
Letters of Inquiry indicate  that preferred carrier changes  were 
submitted for all  of these complainants  by Qwest  Corporation20 
after April  1,  2002,  and that  subsequently  the  complainants 
received bills on behalf of BOI.21 These responses indicate  that 
while preferred carrier  changes to BOI  may have been  submitted 
before April 1, 2002 for  several of the complainants, they  were 
subsequently changed  back  to  their  prior  carrier,  but  then 
changed again to BOI after April 1. 

C.   Evidence Concerning Discontinuance

     9.In  its Discontinuance  Application,  BOI stated  that  it 
provides resold service to  approximately 200 business  customers 
in Vermont,  and  that it  has  ``reevaluated its  long  distance 
business plan and has concluded that it is in the Company's  best 
interest, at this time, to streamline its service in Vermont.''22  
It  attached  a  Notice  to  Customers,  which,  it  states,  its 
customers  received  on  December  10,  2002,  and  has  all  the 
information requested by the State  of Vermont.  BOI states  that 
it ``did not  know of  FCC requirements  to send  the letter  out 
pursuant to 63.71.''23   It also  stated that  it gave  customers 
``15 days from the day  they received our notification letter  to 
choose another long distance provider and protest our request for 
discontinuance.''24  In  fact, the  letter does  not provide  any 
notice to customers of their right to protest the discontinuance, 
or any  of the  other requirements  contained in  section  63.71.  
Rather, BOI asked for a waiver of those requirements.25

     10.  The Vermont Department of Public Service filed a letter 
in response  to  the  BOI  filings.26   In  the  letter,  Vermont 
attaches the Stipulation referred to above, which requires BOI to 
``initiate  the  procedure  outlined  in  47  CFR    63.71   for 
terminating service to Vermont customers who currently are  being 
served by  BOI.''27  Vermont  states  that BOI's  application  is 
inaccurate.  First, Vermont  contends that  ``[i]t is  stretching 
credibility to assert that being told  that you can no longer  do 
business in a state is a strategic business decision.''   Second, 
it  states  that  BOI  did  know  of  the  FCC's  section   63.71 
requirements because  the Stipulation  that BOI  signed  required 
that BOI  initiate  the  procedure  outlined  in  section  63.71.  
Third, Vermont contends that BOI's Notice did not comply with the 
information required by Vermont because the Stipulation  required 
BOI to follow the Commission's section 63.71 requirements and  to 
send a notice that differed from the notice that BOI sent to  its 
customers.  Finally,  Vermont  points  out that  BOI  states  its 
notice was received by its customers on December 10, providing  a 
notice period of 11 days  before termination on December 21,  not 
15 days.28   Vermont  subsequently  provided a  letter  from  BOI 
stating, among other things, that all customers were disconnected 
on December 21, 2002.29

D.   The Slamming Complaints and Verification Tapes

              11.   All of the consumers who filed the complaints 
discussed in this Order (see Appendix A) maintain that they never 
authorized  BOI  to   change  their   preferred  carriers.    For 
illustrative purposes, we will profile two complaints that appear 
to  be  representative  of   BOI's  marketing  and   verification 
practices.

              12.   On May 16, 2002, Fred and Caroline  Michaelis 
filed a complaint with the  Commission alleging that BOI  changed 
their preferred long  distance carrier from  AT&T to BOI  without 
their authorization.30   In support  of that  complaint, Mr.  and 
Mrs. Michaelis also filed a declaration, which stated in part:

       In April 2002,  I (Caroline)  received a  telephone 
       call   from   a   telemarketer   inquiring    about 
       Southwestern Bell's  long  distance  calling  plan.  
       The  telemarketer  offered   me  lower  rates   and 
       consolidation of  my  telephone bills.   I  assumed 
       that   this   telemarketer    was   calling    from 
       Southwestern  Bell  since   he  did  not   identify 
       himself; therefore,  I agreed  to switch  to  lower 
       rates and  to  the consolidation  of  my  telephone 
       bills.

       Later, AT&T  contacted  me  to  inquire  about  the 
       switching of my long distance service from them  to 
       Business Options, Inc.  I told AT&T that I had  not 
       authorized Business  Options, Inc.  to be  my  long 
       distance service provider.

       When I received my  residential telephone bill  for 
       May 2002, I was shocked to discover $81 in  charges 
       from  Business  Options,  Inc.,   who  is  not   my 
       preferred long distance carrier.  My normal monthly 
       bill from AT&T is $18.66. 31

             13.    In June 2002, Laurie  Hart filed a  complaint 
with the Maine Public Utilities Commission alleging that BOI  had 
switched her preferred  long distance  carrier from  AT&T to  BOI 
without her  authorization.  In  support of  that complaint,  Ms. 
Hart filed a declaration that stated that she was contacted by  a 
telemarketer who claimed to be an AT&T representative.  Ms.  Hart 
further stated as follows:

          The telemarketer stated that AT&T was going  to 
          change my  long  distance  service  plan.   The 
          telemarketer asked me if this was okay with me.  
          I told the AT&T telemarketer that this was okay 
          with me.  I was  told by the telemarketer  that 
          someone would contact  me later in  the day  to 
          verify my  approval to  the new  long  distance 
          service plan.  Later on  that day, someone  did 
          contact me to verify  my conversation with  the 
          telemarketer.

          After receiving this telephone call, I received 
          a letter  from AT&T  later in  the week.   AT&T 
          wanted to  know  why  I  had  changed  my  long 
          distance service to  Business Options, Inc.   I 
          contacted AT&T regarding  this matter.  I  told 
          AT&T   about   the   conversation   about   the 
          telemarketer.  I also told  AT&T that I  agreed 
          only to  change my  long distance  plan, but  I 
          never agreed to switch my long distance service 
          from them.  I requested AT&T to switch my  long 
          distance service back to them. 32 

      14. The Maine  Public Utilities  Commission sent  us  third 
party verification tapes  that had  been sent to  that agency  by 
BOI.  In  these recordings,  the verifier  identified himself  or 
herself,  said  ``you  are  authorized  and  give  permission  to 
Business Options to  change the long  distance phone service,  is 
that correct?'', asked the consumer if he or she understood  that 
the rates would be  $4.90 per month and  7 cents per minute,  and 
asked the consumer to verify the name and address, and to provide 
the consumer's date of  birth.  Some of the  tapes, but not  all, 
specify the telephone number to  be changed, and some state  that 
BOI is not the local phone company.33 

                         III.  DISCUSSION

       
A.         Whether BOI  Engaged in Misrepresentations or Lack  of 
Candor to the Commission

              15.   The duty of  absolute truth and  candor is  a 
fundamental  requirement   for   those   appearing   before   the 
Commission.  Our decisions rely  heavily on the completeness  and 
accuracy of  parties'  submissions because  we  do not  have  the 
resources to verify every representation made in the thousands of 
pages submitted to us each day.34   For this reason, we are  very 
disturbed by BOI's apparent misrepresentations or lack of candor.  
Despite  the  fact  that  BOI's  Director  of  Corporate  Affairs 
declared that BOI's submissions were ``complete'' and ``true  and 
correct,''  there   were  significant   material  omissions   and 
erroneous statements in  them.  Further,  there were  significant 
erroneous statements  in  BOI's Application  for  Discontinuance.  
The  facts  suggest  that,   in  making  these  statements,   BOI 
intentionally sought to deceive the Commission.35

              16.   It appears  that BOI  intentionally  provided 
incorrect or  misleading information  to the  Commission when  it 
stated in its response to the most central inquiry in the  Letter 
of Inquiry that, since April  1, 2002, ``no one representing  BOI 
...changed the preferred carrier  as specified in the  complaints 
in Attachment  A.''36   The  initial  inquiry asked  whether  any 
preferred  carrier  changes  for   the  complainants  listed   in 
Attachment A  to the  Letter of  Inquiry were  made, not  whether 
unauthorized changes were made.  Indeed, the letter  specifically 
asked for additional information about how any authorized changes 
had been authorized and verified.37  In response, BOI denied that 
BOI or its  agents had  ever ``changed the  preferred carrier  as 
specified in the  complaints,'' and  BOI did not  respond to  the 
inquiries about  whether changes  were authorized  and  verified.  
Thus, it appears that BOI's response  should be read as a  denial 
that BOI or its  agents had made  any preferred carrier  changes. 
The responses from the local  exchange carriers of the  consumers 
in question appear to show that Qwest Corporation did change  the 
preferred carrier of  these consumers  after April  1, 2002,  and 
that these consumers were subsequently billed for BOI  charges.38  
The fact that the changes were electronically submitted by Qwest, 
rather than  directly by  BOI,  is of  no consequence  here;  the 
consumer was billed for BOI service, and Qwest, the carrier whose 
services BOI was reselling, was apparently acting as BOI's  agent 
in  transmitting  the  preferred  carrier  change  to  the  local 
exchange carrier.39   Indeed, Qwest  has confirmed  that it  made 
these changes on behalf  of BOI.  The  evidence provided by  four 
LECs and Qwest, who have no  stake in this dispute, supported  by 
bills and other documentary evidence, appears more credible  than 
that of  BOI,  which, as  explained  below, had  an  interest  in 
denying that it had changed consumers' preferred carriers without 
their authorization.  Based on this evidence, it appears that BOI 
gave incorrect information when it stated that neither it nor its 
representative made these  carrier changes after  April 1,  2002.  
Further, it  appears  that  BOI  further  lacked  candor  by  not 
providing a  response  to  Enforcement  Bureau  inquiries  as  to 
whether BOI  had complied  with the  common carrier  registration 
requirements pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  64.1195, whether BOI or  its 
agents found  any instances  since  April 1,  2002 in  which  BOI 
telemarketing employees  changed a  consumer's preferred  carrier 
without asking the consumer  whether he or  she wanted to  change 
the preferred carrier and without mentioning the name of BOI, and 
whether BOI had any affiliates or subsidiaries.40 

               17.  BOI's  Application  for  Discontinuance  also 
appears to contain other misrepresentations or instances of  lack 
of candor.  First, its statement that it was requesting authority 
to discontinue  because  it  had reevaluated  its  business  plan 
appears flatly  inconsistent with  its  Stipulation that  it  was 
obligated to  seek  discontinuance authorization  to  settle  the 
proceeding that  had  been brought  against  BOI by  the  Vermont 
Department of Public  Service.41  Second, its  statement that  it 
did not  know  of  the  requirements  of  section  63.71  appears 
inconsistent with its agreement  to a Stipulation that  expressly 
required it  to initiate  the  procedure under  section  63.71.42  
Third, its statement that its Notice provided all the information 
that was required by Vermont  also appears inconsistent with  the 
Stipulation that specifically required BOI to comply with section 
63.71 procedures and to send the Notice that was attached to  the 
Stipulation.43  Fourth,  its statement  that it  had given  ``its 
customers 15 days  from the  day they  received our  notification 
letter to choose another long  distance provider and protest  our 
request  for  discontinuance''  appears  inconsistent  with   its 
assertions that the customers received the Notice on December  10 
and that  BOI would  terminate service  on December  21.44   That 
statement also appears  inconsistent with the  Notice, which  did 
not inform customers of their right to protest, as is required by 
the notice provisions of section 63.71.

               18.  It  appears   that   these   statements   and 
omissions constitute misrepresentations or lack of candor,  aimed 
at deceiving the  Commission into believing  BOI did not  violate 
the Act and/or  Commission rules.   With regard  to the  apparent 
misrepresentation or lack of candor in the response to the Letter 
of Inquiry, the evidence provided by the LECs and Qwest (as  well 
as complainants) appears to  show that a  truthful answer by  BOI 
would have contained an admission that it changed the  consumers' 
preferred carriers, and  BOI would  have had to  prove that  such 
changes were authorized,  which presumably  it could  not do.  By 
instead stating  that ``no  one representing  BOI ...changed  the 
preferred carrier as  specified in the  complaints in  Attachment 
A'' after April 1, 2002,  BOI apparently intended to convey  that 
it was in compliance with Section  258 and our related rules,  in 
an  apparent  attempt  to  lead   the  staff  to  terminate   the 
investigation without  enforcement action.   With regard  to  the 
omissions of required information in BOI's response to the Letter 
of Inquiry, it appears that they too were designed to deceive the 
staff by hiding inculpatory evidence regarding slamming,  failure 
to file  the  required  registration statement,  and  hiding  any 
illegal acts performed in the  names of other companies in  which 
BOI's principals  were officers.  With  respect to  the  apparent 
misrepresentations in the Application for Discontinuance, motives 
to deceive also appear to  exist.  First, BOI's statement in  the 
Application for Discontinuance that it was seeking discontinuance 
for business reasons appears  to be an attempt  to hide the  fact 
that it had been charged  with serious violations by the  Vermont 
Department of Public  Service, some of  which, such as  slamming, 
were  under   investigation  by   the  Commission.    The   other 
misstatements in the  application appear  to have  been aimed  at 
attempting to excuse BOI's late filing of the Application and its 
failure  to   comply  with   the  notice   requirements  of   the 
Commission's rules. 

      19. We therefore direct  the ALJ to  determine whether  BOI 
has made misrepresentations or engaged in lack of candor. 


B.   Whether  BOI  Violated  Section  258  and  the  Commission's 
Slamming Rules

              20.   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 
verification procedures  as  the Commission  shall  prescribe."45  
Section 64.1120(a)(1) of the  Commission's rules prescribes  that 
no submitting 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.''46  
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.

              21.   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 
verification through an independent  third party.47  There is  no 
latitude, however, in the  requirement that carriers obtain  both 
authorization and  verification  prior to  submitting  a  carrier 
change request.  For those carriers who use an independent  third 
party for verification, our  rules require that the  verification 
method confirm at least six things: 

       the identity of  the subscriber; confirmation  that 
       the person on  the call is  authorized to make  the 
       carrier change; confirmation that the person on the 
       call wants to  make the  change; the  names of  the 
       carriers affected  by  the  change;  the  telephone 
       numbers to be  switched; and the  types of  service 
       involved.48

Our rules also require  that carriers keep  audio records of  the 
verification for  a minimum  of two  years after  obtaining  such 
verification.49  Finally,  the  Commission's rules  require  that 
where  a   carrier   "is   selling  more   than   one   type   of 
telecommunications service ... that carrier must obtain  separate 
authorization from the subscriber for each service sold....  Each 
authorization  must  be  verified   separately  from  any   other 
authorizations obtained in the same solicitation.''50

               22.  BOI  did   not   submit   any   evidence   of 
authorization or verification  regarding the consumer  complaints 
cited in our Letter of Inquiry.  Instead, it stated that ``no one 
representing BOI has changed  the preferred carrier as  specified 
in the complaints'' after April 1, 2002.51  Based on the LEC  and 
Qwest Responses, it appears  that preferred carrier changes  were 
made on  behalf of  BOI after  April 1,  2002,  for  each of  the 
customers  listed  in  Appendix   A.52   Moreover,  all  of   BOI 
telemarketers who  apparently initiated  these changes  were  BOI 
employees.53Further, each of  the consumers  complains that  they 
did not authorize any of the preferred carrier changes to BOI.54
 
               23.  It appears that BOI has therefore  apparently 
failed to meet its burden to rebut complainants' assertions  that 
BOI changed their preferred carriers in violation of the Act  and 
the Commission's  rules.  In  this record,  BOI appears  to  have 
provided no evidence to justify the preferred carrier changes  it 
apparently made.  There  is no  need to  refer to  the tapes  BOI 
provided to the Maine Public Utilities Commission, since BOI  did 
not provide these tapes to  our staff as justification for  their 
changes  of  the  consumers'  preferred  carriers.   Even  if  we 
consider the  five  tapes  BOI  submitted  to  the  Maine  Public 
Utilities Commission, however, these tapes show that BOI does not 
gather the  critical information  that  our rules  require.   For 
example, the  tapes  discussed  above55  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.  First, the tapes do not verify the names  of 
the consumers' prior carriers which were affected by the  change, 
as required under our rules, nor  do the tapes of Paul  Brackett, 
Beatrice Violette, and Laura Crowley verify the telephone  number 
to be switched.  Second, the statement in the tapes by the  third 
party verifier that ``You are authorized and giving permission to 
Business Options  to  change  the long  distance  phone  service, 
correct?'' confusingly  combines  questions  as  to  whether  the 
person is the authorized decisionmaker and whether the person  is 
choosing  BOI as his or her  preferred carrier.56  We do not  see 
how the consumers can know  which question they are  answering.57   
Finally, in two  instances, Paul Brackett  and Laura Crowley,  it 
appears that the  consumer did not  understand what the  verifier 
was saying.  Paul Brackett only  respond ed ``Uh-huh'' to all  of 
the verifier's questions.58  It appears  that such an answer  was 
not sufficient  to  permit  the  verifier  to  know  whether  Mr. 
Brackett agreed to change service providers.  Laura Crowley asked 
the verifier whether there would be  a change to her phone  bill, 
and the verifier only  replied that she  was just verifying  what 
the telemarketer had told the  consumer.59  It appears from  this 
colloquy that Ms. Crowley believed that her service was not going 
to change.  It appears that  in neither case were the  consumer's 
answers clear  enough to  verify that  they indeed  wanted  BOI's 
service.

               24.  The above examples appear  to show a  pattern 
of verification that falls egregiously short of the  requirements 
in our  rules, either because they  omit certain requirements  or 
because they  pose questions in such a  way that the consumer  is 
confused   and  the   consumer's  intent   cannot  be   verified.  
Accordingly,  the tapes that  BOI submitted to  the Maine  Public 
Utilities Commission do not appear to be sufficient to rebut  the 
allegations  in the  complaints that  BOI changed  the  preferred 
carriers of the five consumers without proper authorization.

               25.  For the remaining three complaints that  were 
filed with  the FCC, BOI  failed to provide a  tape or any  other 
evidence, beyond  its denial that ``no  one representing BOI  has 
changed the  preferred carrier as  specified in the  complaints'' 
after  April  1, to  rebut  the allegations  in  the  complaints.  
Based  on  this  failure,  it appears  that  BOI  is  liable  for 
changing  the  preferred  carriers  of  those  consumers  without 
authorization.60   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. 61   BOI 
has  not  produced evidence  to  show that  it  used  third?party 
verification or  any of the other  verification methods that  our 
rules  allow.62   Furthermore,  based  on  the  evidence  of  its 
practices shown  by the several ``verification'' tapes  discussed 
above,  it is  reasonable  to assume  that any  verification  BOI 
might have  obtained would likely fall  egregiously short of  the 
requirements  in  our  rules.  Therefore,  even  if  BOI  used  a 
third?party verifier, BOI still would not likely have  sufficient 
evidence  to rebut  the  allegations in  the complaints  that  it 
changed the preferred  carriers of the remaining three  consumers 
without prior authorization.

        26.    We thus direct  the ALJ to  determine whether  BOI 
has willfully or repeatedly violated  section 258 of the Act  and 
the related  Commission rules  by changing  consumer's  preferred 
carriers without their authorization.  

C.  Whether BOI Failed to File Registration Statement

               27.  Section 64.1195  of our  rules requires  that 
any    telecommunications     carrier    providing     interstate 
telecommunications service on or after the effective date of  the 
rule (March 1, 2001) shall submit an FCC Form 499-A.63  BOI was a 
telecommunications carrier on or after the effective date of  the 
rule.  BOI failed  to respond  to a request  to provide  evidence 
that it had  submitted this  report.64  Nor  do the  Commission's 
files contain any evidence  that BOI has  filed this report.   We 
therefore find that BOI  has apparently failed  to file FCC  Form 
499-A,  in  violation  of   section  64.1195.   Section   64.1195 
specifically provides for revocation  of operating authority  for 
failure to comply with its provisions.

       28.     We therefore direct the  ALJ to determine  whether 
BOI  willfully  or  repeatedly  failed  to  file  a  Registration 
Statement in violation of section 64.1195.

D.   Whether  BOI  Violated  Section  214  of  the  Act  and  the 
Commission's Related Rules 

     29.  BOI's application  for  authorization appears  to  show 
that BOI did  not meet  its obligations  as a  common carrier  to 
adequately notify  its customers  of the  discontinuance or  seek 
Commission approval before it  discontinued service, in  apparent 
violation of section 214(a)  of the Act  and sections 63.71,  and 
63.505  of  the  Commission's  rules.   Section  214(a)  has   an 
essential role in the Commission's efforts to protect  consumers.  
Unless the  Commission has  the ability  to determine  whether  a 
discontinuance of service  is in the  public interest, it  cannot 
protect customers from having essential services cut off  without 
adequate warning,  or  ensure  that these  customers  have  other 
viable alternatives.65 

     30.  Under the  Act  and  our  rules, it  is  clear  that  a 
telecommunications carrier must receive Commission  authorization 
and provide the required  notice to its  customers before it  may 
discontinue  service  to  those  customers.66   The  service   of 
approximately  200  BOI  customers  in  Vermont  was   apparently 
terminated by December 21,  2002.67 It appears  that BOI did  not 
file any application until the day before its discontinuance, and 
never gave customers notice of their right to protest.   Further, 
as stated above, it  appears that the reasons  that BOI gave  for 
its failure to comply with Commission rules, i.e., its  ignorance 
of such rules and its  compliance with requirements of the  State 
of Vermont,  were  not  true. The  Stipulation  BOI  signed  with 
Vermont was executed in September 2002.68  Therefore, it  appears 
that at that time BOI knew or should have known that in the  near 
future, it would have to  file an application for  discontinuance 
and provide notice to  its customers.  In  view of the  foregoing 
facts, it appears that  BOI willfully or repeatedly  discontinued 
service without Commission authorization in violation of  section 
214(a)  of  the  Act  and  sections  63.71  and  63.505  of   the 
Commission's rules. 

       31.     We therefore direct the  ALJ to determine  whether 
BOI  willfully   or  repeatedly   discontinued  service   without 
Commission authorization. 

E.   Whether BOI  Should Remain  Authorized to  Act as  a  Common 
Carrier

     32.  It appears that BOI engaged  in a pervasive pattern  of 
misrepresentations or lack of candor to the Commission as well as 
violations  of   the  Commission's   rules  regarding   slamming, 
discontinuance of  service and  carrier registration.    It  thus 
appears that the continued operation  of BOI as a common  carrier 
may not serve  the public  convenience and  necessity within  the 
meaning of Section 214 of the  Act.  We therefore direct the  ALJ 
to determine whether the BOI's blanket Section 214  authorization 
should be revoked.  Further, in light of the egregious nature  of 
BOI's apparently  unlawful  activities,  we  direct  the  ALJ  to 
determine whether  specific  Commission authorization  should  be 
required for  BOI, or  the  principal or  principals of  BOI,  to 
provide any interstate common carrier services in the future.69

                         IV.  CONCLUSION

     33.  In light of the totality of the information now  before 
us, an evidentiary hearing is warranted to determine whether  the 
continued operation of BOI  as a common  carrier would serve  the 
public convenience and  necessity within the  meaning of  Section 
214 of the Act.   Further, due to the  egregious nature of  BOI's 
apparently unlawful  activities, BOI  will  be required  to  show 
cause why an order to cease and desist from the provision of  any 
interstate common carrier services  without the prior consent  of 
the Commission  should not  be issued.   In addition,  consistent 
with our  practice in  revocation proceedings,  the hearing  will 
also address whether a forfeiture should be levied against BOI.   


                      V.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     34.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED  that, pursuant to  Sections 
4(i) and 214 of  the Communications Act of  1934, as amended,  47 
U.S.C.  154(i) and 214, the principal or principals of Business 
Options, Inc.  ARE  DIRECTED  TO SHOW  CAUSE  why  the  operating 
authority bestowed on Business Options, Inc. pursuant to  Section 
214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, should not  be 
REVOKED.

     35.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section  312(b) 
of the  Communications  Act of  1934,  as amended,  47  U.S.C.   
312(b), the principal or principals of Business Options, Inc. ARE 
DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE why an  order directing them TO CEASE  AND 
DESIST FROM  THE  PROVISION  OF  ANY  INTERSTATE  COMMON  CARRIER 
SERVICES without the prior consent  of the Commission should  not 
be issued.

     36.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing shall be held at 
a time and location to  be specified by the Chief  Administrative 
Law Judge  in  a  subsequent  order.  The  ALJ  shall  apply  the 
conclusions of law set forth in  this Order to the findings  that 
he makes in that hearing, upon the following issues:

               
          (a)  to determine whether  Business Options, Inc.  made 
               misrepresentations or engaged in lack of candor;
          
          (b)  to  determine  whether   Business  Options,   Inc. 
               changed consumers' preferred carrier without their 
               authorization in willful or repeated violation  of 
               section 258 of the  Act and sections  64.1100-1190 
               of the Commission's rules; 

          (c)  to determine whether Business Options, Inc. failed 
               to file  Form FCC  499-A  in willful  or  repeated 
               violation of section  64.1195 of the  Commission's 
               rules;

          (d)  to  determine  whether   Business  Options,   Inc. 
               discontinued    service     without     Commission 
               authorization in willful or repeated violation  of 
               section 214  of the  Act  and sections  63.71  and 
               63.505 of the Commission's rules; 

           (e) to determine,  in  light  of  all  the  foregoing, 
               whether Business  Options,  Inc.'s   authorization 
               pursuant to section 214 of the Act to operate as a 
               common carrier should be revoked;

          (f)  to  determine  whether,  in   light  of  all   the 
               foregoing,  Business  Options,  Inc.,  and/or  its 
               principals should be ordered  to cease and  desist 
               from  the  provision  of  any  interstate   common 
               carrier services without the prior consent of  the 
               Commission;


     37.  IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Chief,  Enforcement 
Bureau, shall be  a party  to the designated  hearing.  Both  the 
burden of proceeding and  the burden of proof  shall be upon  the 
Enforcement Bureau as to issues (a) through (f) inclusive.

     1.        38.  IT  IS   FURTHER  ORDERED   that,  to   avail 
themselves of  the  opportunity to  be  heard, the  principal  or 
principals of Business Options, Inc., pursuant to Section 1.91(c) 
of the Commission's rules, SHALL FILE with the Commission  within 
30 days of the mailing of this Order to Show Cause and Notice  of 
Opportunity for  Hearing  a  WRITTEN APPEARANCE  stating  that  a 
principal or other  legal representative  from Business  Options, 
Inc. will  appear at  the  hearing and  present evidence  on  the 
matters specified in the Show Cause Order.  If Business  Options, 
Inc. fail to file a written appearance within the time specified, 
Business Options, Inc.'s right to a hearing SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE 
WAIVED.  In the event  that the right to  a hearing a hearing  is 
waived, the  Presiding Judge,  or the  Chief, Administrative  Law 
Judge if no Presiding Judge has been designated, SHALL  TERMINATE 
the hearing proceeding as to that entity and CERTIFY this case to 
the  Commission  in  the  regular  course  of  business,  and  an 
appropriate order shall be entered.

     39.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that, if  it is determined  that 
BOI has willfully or repeatedly violated any provision of the Act 
or the Commission's rules cited in  this Order to Show Cause  and 
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, it shall be further determined 
whether an  Order  for Forfeiture  shall  be issued  pursuant  to 
Section 503(b) of the Communications  Act of 1934, as  amended,70 
in the amount of no more than: (a) $80,000 for each  unauthorized 
conversion of complainants' long distance service in violation of 
47 U.S.C.   258 and  47 C.F.R.   64.1120;  (b)  $3,000 for  the 
failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement  in 
violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R.  64.1195;  and 
(c) $120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to  a 
community in violation of 47 U.S.C.  214 and 47 C.F.R.   63.71 
and 63.505.
 
     40.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this document constitutes  a 
NOTICE  OF   OPPORTUNITY   FOR  HEARING   pursuant   to   Section 
503(b)(3)(A) of the  Communications Act of  1934, as amended,  47 
U.S.C.    503(b)(A),  for  the  potential  forfeiture  liability 
outlined above.

     41.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this ORDER TO SHOW 
CAUSE AND  NOTICE OF  OPPORTUNITY FOR  HEARING shall  be sent  by 
certified mail,  return  receipt requested,  to  Kurtis  Kintzel, 
President and Chairman  of the Board  of Business Options,  Inc., 
8380 Louisiana Street, Merrillville, Indiana 46410-6312.
 
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Marlene H. Dortch
                              Secretary
                         APPENDIX A

Complainants             Telephone Number         Date of  Change 
of Preferred Carrier
Barbara Beeson           217-932-5584             4/23/02

Paul Brackett            207-474-2170             5/22/02
c/o Bruce Brackett

Norman Crowley      207-375-8155             4/8/02

Ida Guptill              207-698-1850             4/8/02

Bessie Goodbrake         660-885-3139             4/17/02
c/o Sylvia Jane Stack

Laurie Hart              207-862-6202             5/9/02

Fred and Caroline Michaelis   636-479-4324             4/24/02

Beatrice Violette        207-564-2478             4/22/02



_________________________

1 For  purposes  of this  order,  ``BOI'' refers  to  BOI,  Buzz 
Telecom,  and US Bell,  including any affiliates, successors  or 
assigns. 

2 Letter  from Colleen  K. Heitkamp,  Chief,  Telecommunications 
Consumers  Division,   Enforcement   Bureau,   FCC,   to   Legal 
Department, BOI (Nov. 1, 2002) (Letter of Inquiry). ``Slamming'' 
is the submission or  execution of an  unauthorized change in  a 
subscriber's  selection  of  a  provider  of  telecommunications 
service.   See   generally   47   U.S.C.     258;   47   C.F.R. 
64.1100?64.1195.

3  BOI   Section  63.71   Application  (Dec.   20,  2002)   (BOI 
Discontinuance Application).

4 BOI's principal  place of business  is 8380 Louisiana  Street, 
Merrillville Indiana 46410.  It is an Illinois corporation,  98% 
owned by Kurtis Kintzel and Keanan Kintzel.  Letter from Shannon 
Dennie, BOI, to Peter Wolfe,  FCC (Dec. 9, 2002)(BOI  Response).  
It also appears that both Kurtis Kintzel and Keanan Kintzel  are 
or have been officers  in US Bell  Corporation and Buzz  Telecom 
Corporation, which entities have the  same address as BOI.   BOI 
Response;  LexisNexis Business Summary  Report, U.S. Bell  Comm. 
(Feb. 24, 2003); Lexis/Nexis  Personal Report on Kurtis  Kintzel 
and Keanan Kintzel (Feb. 24,  2003).  For purposes of this  NAL, 
the term  ``BOI''  refers to  BOI,  Buzz Telecom  and  US  Bell, 
including any affiliates, successors or assigns.

5 BOI Discontinuance Application.

6 See  CCN, Inc.,  et al.,  Order to  Show Cause  and Notice  of 
Opportunity for Hearing, 12 FCC Rcd 8547 (1997)(CCN).

7 Id.

8 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  informal  slamming 
complaint rules).

9 Letter of Inquiry. 

10 Letter  from  Sarah  Hofmann, Vermont  Department  of  Public 
Service, to Marlene  H. Dortch,  Secretary, FCC  (Jan. 3,  2003) 
(Vermont Letter).

11 Id.

12 BOI Discontinuance Application.  The application was  stamped 
received by the Commission's Mail Room  on December 27, 2002.

13 Letter of Inquiry.

14 BOI Response.

15 BOI Response.

16 BOI Response.

17 BOI Response.

18 Appendix A contains  a list of  complainants who have  signed 
declarations under penalty of perjury.

19 Letter from  Colleen K.  Heitkamp, Chief,  Telecommunications 
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Toni Acton,  SBC 
Communications, Inc.  (Nov. 20,  2002); Letter  from Colleen  K. 
Heitkamp,   Chief,   Telecommunications   Consumers    Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Suzanne Carmel, Manager,  Regulatory 
Affairs,  Verizon  (Nov.  20,  2002);  Letter  from  Colleen  K. 
Heitkamp,   Chief,   Telecommunications   Consumers    Division, 
Enforcement Bureau,  FCC, to  Joyce Walker,  Sprint  Corporation 
(Nov.  20,  2002);  Letter  from  Colleen  K.  Heitkamp,  Chief, 
Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau,  FCC, 
to Chad  Young, Hampden  Telephone Company  (Nov. 21,  2002)(LEC 
Letters of Inquiry). 

20 See infra fn. 36 and accompanying text.  Qwest Corporation has 
confirmed that these preferred carrier changes were submitted  on 
behalf of Business  Options, doing business  as US Bell.   Letter 
from Richard Denny, Qwest Communications,  to Sharon D. Lee,  FCC 
(Feb. 19, 2003)  (Qwest Letter).   The Letter  of Inquiry  sought 
information concerning ``Business  Options, Inc., any  affiliate, 
d/b/a,  parent   companies,  any   wholly  or   partially   owned 
subsidiary, or other affiliated companies or businesses, and  all 
directors, officers, employees, or agents, including  consultants 
and any other persons working for  or on behalf of the  foregoing 
at any time during the period covered by this letter.''

21 Letter from  Terri L. Hoskins,  SBC, to Peter  G. Wolfe,  FCC 
(Dec. 9, 2002); Letter from Marie T. Breslin, Director,  Federal 
Regulatory, Verizon,  to Peter  G. Wolfe,  FCC (Dec.  9,  2002); 
Letter from  Mary turner,  Vice President,  Service  Operations, 
Sprint, to Peter G. Wolfe, FCC (Dec. 4, 2002); Letter from  Chad 
t. Young, General Manager-Sales & Service, Hampden, Warren,  the 
Islands, Maine, TDS  Telecom, to  Peter G. Wolfe,  FCC (Dec.  2, 
2002)(LEC Responses).  SBC  requested confidential treatment  of 
the  customer  information  contained   in  its  response,   but 
subsequently withdrew its confidentiality request to the  extent 
the response  related  to  the date  of  the  preferred  carrier 
change, and  filed a  redacted  response, containing  only  that 
information.  Letter  from Jackie  Flemming,  SBC, to  Peter  G. 
Wolfe, FCC, dated January 31, 2002.

22 BOI Discontinuance Application.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 BOI Request for Waiver (December 20, 2002).

26 Vermont Letter.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Letter from  Shannon Dennie, BOI,  to Sarah Hoffman,  Vermont 
Department of  Public Service  (Jan. 8,  2003) ((BOI  Letter  to 
Vermont).  This  letter  states  that  it  sent  the  letter  to 
customers on December 6, 2002.

30  Complaint  dated  May  16,  2002,  from  Fred  and  Caroline 
Michaelis, filed with the FCC.

31 Declaration of  Fred and Caroline  Michaelis, dated Oct.  11, 
2002.

32 Declaration  of Laurie  Hart, dated  January 13,  2003.   One 
other complainant, Barbara Beeson, alleged that the telemarketer 
led her to believe  that she was calling  on behalf of  Verizon, 
the complainant's preferred  local and  long distance  telephone 
service provider.  Declaration of Barbara Beeson, dated November 
25, 2002.

33 See tapes of Paul Brackett, Laura Crowley, Ida Guptil, Laurie 
Hart, Beatrice Violette.

34 See, e.g., Swan Creek Communications  v. FCC, 39 F. 3d  1217, 
1222 (D.C.Cir 1994); RKO General, Inc. v. FCC, 670 F.2d 215, 232 
(D.C.Cir 1981), cert.  denied, 456  U.S. 927 and  457 U.S.  1119 
(1982). 

35   Intent   to   deceive   is   an   essential   element    of 
misrepresentation or lack of candor.  See, e.g., Swan Creek,  39 
F. 3d at 1222; Garden State Broadcasting Ltd. P'ship v. FCC, 996 
F. 2d  386, 393  (D.C. Cir.  1993); Policy  Regarding  Character 
Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing and Amendment of Rules  of 
Broadcast Practice and Procedure  Relating to Written  Responses 
to Commission Inquiries and the Making of Misrepresentations  to 
the Commission by Permittees and Licensees,102 FCC 2d 1179, 1196 
(1986); Fox River Broadcasting Company, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 
(1983).

36 BOI Response.   

37   Paragraph 3 of the Letter  of Inquiry required that if  BOI  
answered the initial inquiry by acknowledging  that it had  made 
the preferred carrier changes  specified in the complaints,   it 
should then  say how  the carrier  changes were  authorized  and 
verified.  See para. 6, supra.  

38 LEC Responses.

39 See Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and 
Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers Long  Distance 
Carriers, 14  FCC  Rcd  1508,  1564-65  (1998)  (finding  that  a 
reseller which is responsible for the submission of  unauthorized 
carrier change requests   has the obligations  of the  submitting 
carrier where the underlying carrier  submits the request on  the 
reseller's behalf).

40 BOI Response.   In addition, a search of Commission files  by 
our staff does  not show  that any  FCC Form  499-A required  by 
Section 64.1195 was ever filed by BOI.  See also n. 4.

41 See BOI Discontinuance  Application; Vermont Letter.

42 See BOI Discontinuance Application; Vermont Letter.

43 See BOI Discontinuance Application; Vermont Letter.

44 BOI Discontinuance Application.

45 47 U.S.C.  258.

46 47 C.F.R.  64.1120(a)(1).

47 Id.  64.1120(c).

48 Id.  64.1120(c)(3)(iii).

49 Id.  64.1120(c)(3)(iv).

50 Id.  64.1120(b).

51 BOI Response.

52 LEC Responses; Qwest Letter.

53 BOI Response.

54 See, e.g., Verizon Response dated December 9, 2002.

55 See fn. 31, supra.    

56 It is especially important for the verification procedure  to 
be clear  where, as here, consumers have alleged that they  have 
been misled by the telemarketers.  These unrebutted  allegations 
were made  by  Laurie Hart,  who  stated that  the  telemarketer 
claimed to be a representative of AT&T; Caroline Michaelis,  who 
stated that  the  telemarketer  led  her  to  believe  that  the 
telemarketer was  calling from  Southwestern Bell;  and  Barbara 
Beeson, who alleged  that the  telemarketer led  her to  believe 
that  the  telemarketer  was  calling  on  behalf  of   Verizon.  
Declarations of Laurie  Hart, Fred and  Caroline Michaelis,  and 
Barbara Beeson.

57 See WebNet Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 13874 (2002).

58 See Tape of Paul Brackett.

59 See Tape of Laura Crowley.

60 See Vista Services Corporation,  Order of Forfeiture, 15  FCC 
Rcd 20646, 20649 (2000), recon. denied, 16 FCC Rcd 8289 (2001).

61 47 C.F.R.  64.1120(c)(3)(iv).

62 As  we discuss  above,  our rules  allow carriers  to  verify 
carrier change authorization in  one of  three ways:   obtaining 
the consumer's written  or electronically signed  authorization; 
setting up  a toll  free number  for the  consumer to  call  for 
verification; or obtaining authorization through an  independent 
third party.  See 47C.F.R. 64.1120(c).

63 47 C.F.R.  64.1195.

64 See Letter of Inquiry; BOI Response.

65  See   Implementation   of  Section   402(b)(2)(A)   of   the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996  and Petition for Forbearance  of 
the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance,  Report 
and Order in CC Docket  No. 97-11 and Second Memorandum  Opinion 
and Order in  AAD File  No. 98-43,  14 FCC  Rcd 11364,  11380-81 
(1999).

66 47 U.S.C.  214(a); 47 C.F.R.  63.71, 63.505.

67 BOI Letter to Vermont.  According to BOI, after receiving the 
notice, approximately  100  of  these customers  had  called  to 
inquire about the notice or to seek immediate disconnection.

68 See Vermont Letter.

69 See CCN, 12 FCC Rcd 8547.

70 47 U.S.C.  503(b).