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                 )    File No. EB-04-IH-0518
                                )
                                )
Global Teldata II, LLC           )    NAL/Acct. No. 200632080005
                                )
                                )
Apparent Liability for           )    FRN No. 0010865996
Forfeiture                       )

                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY 
                    FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER


Adopted:  October 31, 2005                             Released:  
October 31, 2005

By the Commission:

I.   INTRODUCTION 

                  1.     In this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
             Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that a 
             telecommunications provider, operating since 2003 
             and at least indirectly benefiting from the federal 
             programs supporting the telecommunications industry 
             since that time, apparently failed to meet its 
             statutory and regulatory obligations relating to 
             those programs.  Based upon the facts and 
             circumstances surrounding this matter, we conclude 
             that this company is apparently liable for a total 
             forfeiture of $236,774.
                  2.     We specifically find that Global Teldata 
             II, LLC (``Global Teldata'') has apparently 
             violated section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules 
             by willfully and repeatedly failing to register 
             with the Commission until November 17, 2004.1  We 
             also find that Global Teldata has apparently 
             violated section 54.711(a) of the Commission's 
             rules by failing to timely submit certain 
             Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets 
             (``Worksheets'') prior to November 17, 2004.2  
             Finally, we find that Global Teldata has apparently 
             violated section 254(d) of the Communications Act 
             of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),3 and section 
             54.706(a) of the Commission's rules by willfully 
             and repeatedly failing to contribute to the 
             Universal Service Fund (``USF'') on a timely basis 
             in 2004 and 2005.4

                  3.     We are resolved to ensure a level 
             playing field for all companies that are required 
             to contribute to the maintenance of our various 
             Congressionally mandated programs, including the 
             federal universal service program.  The failure of 
             a carrier to fulfill its obligation to contribute 
             to these programs has a direct and significant 
             detrimental impact on the programs and on other 
             industry participants because that failure removes 
             from the base of contributions telecommunications 
             revenues that otherwise should be included, thereby 
             forcing other telecommunications carriers to 
             shoulder additional costs associated with the 
             programs.  Thus, this NAL and others like it 
             represent one element in a comprehensive approach 
             to improving the efficacy and fairness of the 
             universal service program as well as reducing 
             waste, fraud and abuse in the program.

II.  BACKGROUND

                  4.     The Commission is charged by Congress 
             with regulating interstate and international 
             telecommunications and ensuring that providers of 
             such telecommunications comply with the 
             requirements imposed on them by the Act and our 
             rules.5  The Commission also has been charged by 
             Congress to establish, administer and maintain 
             various telecommunications regulatory programs, and 
             to fund these programs through assessments on the 
             telecommunications providers that benefit from 
             them.  To accomplish these goals, the Commission 
             established ``a central repository of key facts 
             about carriers'' through which it could monitor the 
             entry and operation of interstate 
             telecommunications providers to ensure, among other 
             things, that they are qualified, do not engage in 
             fraud, and do not evade oversight.6  Commission 
             rules require that, upon entry or anticipated entry 
             into interstate telecommunications markets, 
             telecommunications carriers register by submitting 
             information on FCC Form 499-A, also known as the 
             annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet.7  
             The Commission also requires telecommunications 
             providers to submit financial information on annual 
             and, subject to the de minimis exception,8 
             quarterly short-form Worksheets to enable the 
             Commission to determine and collect the statutorily 
             mandated program assessments.9  

                  5.     The Telecommunications Act of 1996 
             codified Congress' historical commitment to promote 
             universal service to ensure that consumers in all 
             regions of the nation have access to affordable, 
             quality telecommunications services.10  In 
             particular, section 254(d) of the Act requires, 
             among other things, that ``[e]very 
             telecommunications carrier [providing] interstate 
             telecommunications services . . . contribute, on an 
             equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the 
             specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms 
             established by the Commission to preserve and 
             advance universal service.''11  In implementing 
             this Congressional mandate, the Commission directed 
             all telecommunications carriers providing 
             interstate telecommunications services and certain 
             other providers of interstate telecommunications to 
             contribute to the Universal Service Fund based upon 
             their interstate and international end-user 
             telecommunications revenues.12  Failure by some 
             providers to pay their share into the Fund skews 
             the playing field by giving non-paying providers an 
             economic advantage over their competitors who must 
             shoulder more than their fair share of the costs of 
             the Fund.

                  6.     The Commission has established specific 
             procedures to administer universal service and 
             other regulatory programs.  A carrier must file 
             Worksheets for the purpose of determining its USF 
             and other regulatory fee program payments.13  These 
             periodic filings trigger a determination of 
             liability, if any, and subsequent billing and 
             collection by the entities that administer the 
             regulatory programs.  USAC uses the revenue 
             projections submitted on the quarterly filings to 
             determine each carrier's universal service 
             contribution amount.14  Carriers are required to 
             pay their monthly USF contribution by the date 
             shown on their invoice.15  The Commission's rules 
             explicitly warn contributors that failure to file 
             their forms or submit their payments potentially 
             subjects them to enforcement action.16  Further, 
             under the Commission's ``red light rule,'' action 
             will be withheld on any application to the 
             Commission or request for authorization made by any 
             entity that has failed to pay when due its 
             regulatory program payments, such as USF 
             contributions, and if payment or payment 
             arrangements are not made within 30 days from 
             notice to the applicant, such applications or 
             requests will be dismissed.17

                  7.     Global Teldata began operations on April 
             1, 2003 as a reseller of local exchange service and 
             intrastate, interstate, and international 
             interexchange service.18  Global Teldata II, LLC 
             was formed in a corporate reorganization of a 
             predecessor entity, Global Teldata Inc., effective 
             April 1, 2003.19  The predecessor, Global Teldata 
             Inc., had never registered with the Commission.

                  8.     In 2004, the Enforcement Bureau 
             (``Bureau'') audit staff sought to identify 
             resellers of telecommunications service that failed 
             to register as telecommunications service providers 
             with the Commission, and, thus, may also have 
             failed to satisfy various Commission program 
             requirements.20  To identify such resellers, the 
             Bureau audit staff compared lists of resellers 
             provided by wholesale service providers against the 
             Commission's central repository of registered 
             telecommunications service providers with filer 
             identification numbers.  If a reseller did not 
             appear to have an identification number, the audit 
             staff sent an inquiry to that reseller. 
                  9.     On March 30, 2004, the Bureau's audit 
             staff sent a letter to Global Teldata requesting 
             information pertaining to Global Teldata's 
             compliance with section 64.1195 of the Commission's 
             rules.21  Global Teldata responded to the March 30, 
             2004 Audit Letter on May 25, 2004,22 briefly 
             stating that it believed it was de minimis for USF 
             purposes in 2003.23  It did not register or file 
             any periodic Worksheets at this time or in the 
             following five months.   

                  10.    By late October 2004, Global Teldata had 
             still not registered with the Commission or filed 
             any Worksheets, and the Bureau therefore issued a 
             letter of inquiry to it on October 28, 2004.24  The 
             October 28, 2004 LOI directed Global Teldata, among 
             other things, to submit a sworn written response to 
             a series of questions relating to Global Teldata's 
             apparent failure to register and file 
             Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets and to make 
             mandated federal telecommunications regulatory 
             program payments.  Global Teldata responded to the 
             October 28, 2004 LOI on November 17, 2004.25  In 
             the November 17, 2004 LOI Response, Global Teldata 
             reiterated that it believed it was de minimis for 
             USF purposes in 2003 and that it was unaware it 
             must file for the other programs notwithstanding a 
             de minimis USF obligation.26  In addition, Global 
             Teldata represented that in the first week of 
             November 2004, it received its final revenue 
             figures for October 2004 which, for the first time, 
             placed it over the de minimis threshold for USF 
             contributions.27  Global Teldata also stated that, 
             through a billing software package provided by a 
             third-party vendor, it automatically billed and 
             collected payments for the USF from its end-user 
             customers.28

                  11.    On November 17, 2004, the same day that 
             Global Teldata filed the November 17, 2004 LOI 
             Response, it late-filed an initial 2004 Form 499-
             A29 and an initial quarterly Worksheet for the 
             first quarter of 2005, due November 1, 2004.30  
             Since November 17, 2004, Global Teldata has timely 
             filed all subsequent annual and quarterly 
             Worksheets.  Global Teldata began paying invoiced 
             monthly USF contributions on February 14, 2005 and 
             paid a total of $53,548 in several monthly 
             installments for invoiced USF adjustments 
             attributable to 2004.  

                  12.    On June 28, 2005 and August 17, 2005, 
             the Bureau issued follow-up LOIs to Global 
             Teldata,31 and Global Teldata responded on July 8, 
             200532 and August 29, 2005.33  The August 29, 2005 
             LOI Response indicated that Global Teldata's actual 
             international and interstate telecommunications 
             revenue from end users for January to October 2004 
             was $722,368, over three times the amount of 
             $204,016 originally identified in the November 17, 
             2004 LOI Response.  The revised amount was larger 
             because Global Teldata did not previously include 
             USF charges that it had been recovering through its 
             third-party billing software and subscriber line 
             charges that it had been recovering in other line 
             items.34  The August 29, 2005 LOI Response further 
             showed that the correct amount of international and 
             interstate telecommunications revenue from end 
             users for the entire year 2004 was $868,542.35  
             Finally, the August 29, 2005 LOI Response indicated 
             that cumulative telecommunications revenue for the 
             first two months of 2004 was $128,785, already in 
             excess of the annual de minimis level.36    

III.      DISCUSSION

                  13.    Under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 
             any person who is determined by the Commission to 
             have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with 
             any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, 
             or order issued by the Commission shall be liable 
             to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.37  
             Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as 
             ``the conscious and deliberate commission or 
             omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent 
             to violate'' the law.38  The legislative history to 
             section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this 
             definition of willful applies to both sections 312 
             and 503(b) of the Act,39 and the Commission has so 
             interpreted the term in the section 503(b) 
             context.40  The Commission may also assess a 
             forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, 
             and not willful.41  ``Repeated'' means that the act 
             was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts 
             more than one day.42  To impose such a forfeiture 
             penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of 
             apparent liability and the person against whom the 
             notice has been issued must have an opportunity to 
             show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty 
             should be imposed.43  The Commission will then 
             issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance 
             of the evidence that the person has violated the 
             Act or a Commission rule.44  As set forth below, we 
             conclude under this standard that Global Teldata is 
             apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent 
             willful and repeated violations of section 254(d) 
             of the Act45 and sections 54.706(a), 54.711(a), and 
             64.1195 of the Commission's rules.46

                  14.    The fundamental issues in this case are 
             whether Global Teldata apparently violated the Act 
             and the Commission's rules by:  (1) willfully or 
             repeatedly failing to register pursuant to section 
             64.1195 of the Commission's rules;47 (2) willfully 
             or repeatedly failing to timely file 
             Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets; and (3) 
             willfully or repeatedly failing to make requisite 
             contributions toward the Universal Service Fund 
             when due.  We answer these questions affirmatively.  
             Based on a preponderance of the evidence, we 
             conclude that Global Teldata is apparently liable 
             for a forfeiture of $236,774 for apparently 
             willfully and repeatedly violating section 254(d) 
             of the Act,48 and sections 54.706(a), 54.711(a), 
             and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules.

                  15.    Specifically, we propose the following 
             forfeitures for apparent violations within the last 
             year: (1) $100,000 for failure to register pursuant 
             to section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules;49 (2) 
             $50,000 for failure to file the quarterly 
             Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet due on 
             November 1, 2004 on a timely basis; and (3) $86,774 
             for failure to make three monthly USF contributions 
             on a timely basis.  Although we propose forfeitures 
             only for apparent violations within the last year, 
             we discuss below the history of Global Teldata's 
             noncompliance in the prior year as useful 
             background, to demonstrate the scope of Global 
             Teldata's misconduct, and the context of the 
             misconduct that is within the statute of 
             limitations period and thus covered by this NAL.

     III.A.    Registration with the Commission

                  16.    We conclude that Global Teldata has 
             apparently violated section 64.1195(a) of the 
             Commission's rules by failing to register with the 
             Commission from at least April 1, 2003 until 
             November 17, 2004.50  Global Teldata's failure to 
             register constitutes a clear violation of a vital 
             Commission rule.  Section 64.1195(a) of the 
             Commission's rules unambiguously requires that all 
             carriers that provide, or plan to provide, 
             interstate telecommunications services register 
             with the Commission by submitting specified 
             information.51  Although Global Teldata has been 
             providing interstate telecommunications services 
             for several years, it failed to register in 
             accordance with section 64.1195(a) until November 
             17, 2004, over seven months after receiving the 
             initial March 30, 2004 Audit Letter, and only after 
             receiving the additional October 28, 2004 LOI.  As 
             a result of its misconduct, Global Teldata operated 
             for a significant period without participation in 
             any of the programs tied to registration.  As an 
             interstate telecommunications carrier, Global 
             Teldata had a clear and affirmative duty to apprise 
             itself of, and satisfy, its federal obligations.52    

                  17.    We view Global Teldata's apparent 
             failure to register for a significant period as a 
             serious dereliction of its responsibilities under 
             the Act and our rules.  A carrier's compliance with 
             the Commission's registration requirement is 
             critical to the administration of the USF and other 
             programs, and to fulfilling Congress' objectives in 
             section 254(d) of the Act.  As we noted above, a 
             carrier's duty to register upon entry, or 
             anticipated entry, into interstate 
             telecommunications markets is essential to the 
             fulfillment of the USF and other regulatory program 
             missions because it identifies the company to the 
             various program administrators and brings the 
             company within the purview and oversight of those 
             administrators.  If a carrier never identifies 
             itself as a telecommunications provider by properly 
             registering under the Commission's rules, then 
             neither the Commission nor the various program 
             administrators can ascertain whether that carrier 
             has fulfilled its regulatory obligations, including 
             the requirement that carriers file Worksheets and 
             contribute to USF and other regulatory programs.  
             Moreover, the program administrators have no basis 
             upon which to invoice the carrier for 
             contributions.  A telecommunications carrier that 
             fails to register thus can operate outside of the 
             Commission's oversight and evade its federal 
             obligations to contribute toward the vital programs 
             linked to registration.

                  18.    The impact of a carrier's failure to 
             register is no less severe where, as here, that 
             carrier ultimately registers with the Commission.  
             Although Global Teldata registered on November 17, 
             2004, and has filed required Worksheets beginning 
             that month, Global Teldata delayed its registration 
             for a substantial period of time and took no action 
             until after receiving two letters from the 
             Bureau.53  The Commission has repeatedly stated 
             that post-investigative corrective measures to 
             address a violation do not eliminate a licensee's 
             responsibility for the period during which the 
             violation occurred.54  Global Teldata's substantial 
             delay in registering after receiving the Bureau's 
             initial letter raises serious questions about its 
             intention to do so absent threat of Commission 
             action.  Based on a preponderance of the evidence, 
             therefore, we find that Global Teldata apparently 
             has violated section 64.1195(a) of the Commission's 
             rules by willfully and repeatedly failing to 
             register until November 17, 2004.55  

     III.B.    Submission of Telecommunications Reporting 
          Worksheets 

                  19.    We conclude that Global Teldata 
             apparently has violated section 54.711(a) of the 
             Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly 
             failing to file certain Telecommunications 
             Reporting Worksheets, on a timely basis, until 
             November 17, 2004.56  Section 54.711(a) of the 
             Commission's rules clearly establishes a carrier's 
             obligation to file periodic Telecommunications 
             Reporting Worksheets.57  A carrier's failure to 
             file these Worksheets as required has serious 
             implications for the USF and other programs.  As 
             discussed above, the filing of a Telecommunications 
             Reporting Worksheet prompts a determination of 
             liability for, and subsequent billing and 
             collection of, payments by the administrators of 
             the Universal Service Fund and other regulatory 
             programs.  With regard to the federal universal 
             service program in particular, the failure of a 
             carrier such as Global Teldata to abide by its 
             federal filing obligation has a direct and profound 
             detrimental impact by removing from the base of USF 
             contributions telecommunications revenues that 
             otherwise should be included, thereby shifting to 
             compliant carriers additional economic burdens 
             associated with the federal universal service 
             program.58  Consequently, a carrier's failure to 
             file required Worksheets frustrates the very 
             purpose for which Congress enacted section 254(d) - 
             to ensure that every interstate carrier 
             ``contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory 
             basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient 
             mechanisms established by the Commission to 
             preserve and advance universal service.''59  Viewed 
             in this context, the Telecommunications Reporting 
             Worksheet is not only an administrative tool, but a 
             fundamental and critical component of the 
             Commission's Universal Service program.
       
                  20.    Based on a preponderance of the 
             evidence, we find that Global Teldata apparently 
             has violated section 254 of the Act60 and section 
             54.711 of the Commission's rules61 by willfully and 
             repeatedly failing to timely file required 
             information with the Commission on multiple 
             occasions until November 17, 2004.  It is clear 
             that Global Teldata was not de minimis for USF 
             purposes as of the end of February 2004 when its 
             cumulative interstate and international 
             telecommunications revenue from end-users reached 
             $128,785.  Failure to file Worksheets after that 
             time is a violation of our rules.  Global Teldata's 
             failures to timely file Worksheets include its 
             failure to file the quarterly Worksheet due on 
             November 1, 2004, which is within the last year and 
             is the basis for that component of the proposed 
             forfeiture in this NAL.62  

     III.C.    Universal Service Contributions

                  21.    We further conclude that Global Teldata 
             apparently violated section 254(d) of the Act and 
             section 54.706 of the Commission's rules by 
             willfully and repeatedly failing to contribute to 
             universal service support mechanisms on a timely 
             basis on several occasions in 2004 and 2005.63  
             Section 54.706(c) of the Commission's rules 
             unambiguously directs that ``entities [providing] 
             interstate telecommunications to the public . . . 
             for a fee . . . contribute to the universal service 
             support programs.''64  Although section 54.708 of 
             the rules exempts de minimis carriers from 
             contribution, Global Teldata's applicable revenue 
             exceeded the threshold beginning in February 
             2004.65  As we previously have stated,

     [c]arrier nonpayment of universal service 
     contributions undermines the efficiency and 
     effectiveness of the universal service support 
     mechanisms.  Moreover, delinquent carriers may 
     obtain a competitive advantage over carriers 
     complying with the Act and our rules.  We consider 
     universal service nonpayment to be a serious 
     threat to a key goal of Congress and one of the 
     Commission's primary responsibilities.66 

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, we find that Global 
Teldata apparently has violated sections 254(d) of the Act and 
54.706 of the Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly 
failing to timely make its monthly universal service contribution 
payments.  Since Global Teldata did not make its first payment to 
the USF until February 2005, its failures to make monthly 
payments include three violations within the twelve months 
immediately preceding the date of this NAL, i.e., the payments 
due November 15 and December 15, 2004 and January 15, 2005.  
Those three violations are the basis for that component of the 
proposed forfeiture in this NAL.  

     III.D.    Proposed Forfeiture

                  22.    Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides 
             that any person that willfully or repeatedly fails 
             to comply with any provision of the Act or any 
             rule, regulation, or order issued by the 
             Commission, shall be liable to the United States 
             for a forfeiture penalty.67  Section 503(b)(2)(B) 
             of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a 
             forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or 
             each day of a continuing violation, up to a 
             statutory maximum of $1.325 million for a single 
             act or failure to act.68  In determining the 
             appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the 
             factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the 
             Act, including ``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.''69

                  23.    Under section 503(b)(6) of the Act, we 
             may only propose forfeitures for apparent 
             violations that occurred within one year of the 
             date of this NAL.70  Nevertheless, section 503(b) 
             does not bar us from assessing whether Global 
             Teldata's conduct prior to that time period 
             apparently violated the Act or our rules in 
             determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for 
             those violations within the statute of 
             limitations.71  Therefore, although we find that 
             Global Teldata apparently violated the Act and our 
             rules for several years, we propose forfeitures 
             here only for violations that occurred within the 
             last year.

                  24.    This case involves a carrier's dual 
             failures with respect to reporting obligations: 
             first, Global Teldata failed to register until 
             November 17, 2004; and second, it failed to submit 
             any periodic Telecommunications Reporting 
             Worksheets from the time its telecommunications 
             revenues exceeded de minimis levels in early 2004 
             until November 17, 2004.  In both cases, it 
             effectively addressed compliance only after 
             receiving two letters from the Bureau.  We find 
             Global Teldata's failure to discharge its federal 
             reporting obligations to be particularly egregious.  
             As we stated above, the registration and filing of 
             Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets are 
             fundamental to the implementation of our central 
             repository of carriers and to the administration of 
             multiple statutorily derived programs - including 
             the Universal Service Fund.  Where, as here, a 
             carrier ignores its obligations by wholly failing 
             to register for a long period - thereby affecting 
             the time and manner in which these important 
             federal programs are funded - it undermines the 
             programs and thwarts the purposes for which 
             Congress and the Commission established them.  

                  25.    Recently, we have held that a 
             substantial forfeiture of $100,000 is warranted for 
             a carrier's failure to register with the 
             Commission.72  We explained that ``[t]his egregious 
             behavior strikes at the core of our ability to 
             implement and enforce the Act and our rules 
             effectively, thus warranting a substantial 
             forfeiture.''73  A carrier that fails to register 
             hampers ``efficient and effective Commission 
             enforcement by delaying detection of, and action 
             against, its behavior . . . and imposes a 
             substantial burden on the Commission, which can 
             only identify such carriers through compliance 
             review programs that require significant amounts of 
             staff time and resources.''74  Taking into account 
             all of the factors enumerated in section 
             503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we conclude that this same 
             reasoning accurately describes the impact of Global 
             Teldata's misconduct, and that a proposed 
             forfeiture of $100,000 is therefore warranted. 

                  26.    In the past, we have held that a 
             substantial forfeiture of $50,000 is warranted for 
             a carrier's failure to file a Telecommunications 
             Reporting Worksheet for revenue reporting 
             purposes.75  As in these past cases, we find that 
             Global Teldata's willful and repeated failure to 
             file periodic Telecommunications Reporting 
             Worksheets is egregious.  A carrier's obligation to 
             file these Worksheets is directly linked to, and 
             thus has serious implications for, administration 
             of the USF and other regulatory programs.  By 
             ignoring its reporting obligations, Global Teldata 
             has unilaterally shifted to compliant carriers and 
             their customers the economic costs associated with 
             the universal service and other regulatory 
             programs.  Therefore, we find that Global Teldata 
             is apparently liable for a $50,000 forfeiture for 
             its failure to timely file one Worksheet within the 
             last year; i.e., the one due November 1, 2004.  

                  27.    Based on the facts above, it also 
             appears that Global Teldata has failed to make 
             timely requisite contributions into the Universal 
             Service Fund for 2004, even though its 
             telecommunications revenues clearly exceeded de 
             minimis levels from early that year.  Again, 
             nonpayment of universal service contributions is an 
             egregious offense that bestows on delinquent 
             carriers an unfair competitive advantage by 
             shifting to compliant carriers the economic costs 
             and burdens associated with universal service.  A 
             carrier's failure to make required universal 
             service contributions frustrates Congress' policy 
             objective in section 254(d) of the Act to ensure 
             the equitable and non-discriminatory distribution 
             of universal service costs among all 
             telecommunications providers.76  The Commission has 
             established a base forfeiture amount of $20,000 for 
             each month in which a carrier has failed to make 
             required universal service contributions.77  At a 
             minimum, Global Teldata is apparently liable for a 
             base forfeiture of $60,000 for its willful and 
             repeated failure to make three universal service 
             contributions when due within the past year, i.e., 
             the payments due on November 15 and December 15, 
             2004, and January 15, 2005.  
      
                  28.    In the past, we have calculated upward 
             adjustments to forfeitures for failure to make USF 
             payments based on half of the company's unpaid 
             contributions.78  As explained above, USAC records 
             show that Global Teldata owed $53,548 for total 
             2004 USF contributions.  Therefore, taking into 
             account all of the factors enumerated in section 
             503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we propose an upward 
             adjustment of $26,774 - half the amount that Global 
             Teldata owed for 2004 USF contributions - for 
             Global Teldata's apparent failure to make universal 
             service contributions.  We thus find Global Teldata 
             liable for a total proposed forfeiture of $86,774 
             for its apparent willful and repeated failures to 
             make timely contributions into the Universal 
             Service Fund.

IV.  CONCLUSION

                  29.    In light of the seriousness, duration 
             and scope of the apparent violations, and to ensure 
             that a company with substantial revenues such as 
             Global Teldata does not consider the proposed 
             forfeiture merely ``an affordable cost of doing 
             business,''79 we find that a proposed forfeiture in 
             the amount of $236,774 is warranted.  As discussed 
             above, this proposed forfeiture amount includes:  
             (1) a total proposed penalty of $100,000 for 
             failing to register pursuant to section 64.1195 of 
             the Commission's rules;80 (2) a total proposed 
             penalty of $50,000 for failing to file one 
             Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet within the 
             past year; and (3) a total proposed penalty of 
             $86,774 for failing to make three monthly universal 
             service contributions when due within the past 
             year. 

                  30.    We caution that additional violations of 
             the Act or the Commission's rules could subject 
             Global Teldata to further enforcement action.  Such 
             action could take the form of higher monetary 
             forfeitures and/or possible revocation of Global 
             Teldata's operating authority, including 
             disqualification of Global Teldata's principals 
             from the provision of any interstate common carrier 
             services without the prior consent of the 
             Commission.81  In addition, we note that, to the 
             extent Global Teldata is ever found to be 
             delinquent on any debt owed to the Commission 
             (e.g., has failed to pay all of its USF 
             contributions), the Commission will not act on, and 
             may dismiss, any application or request for 
             authorization filed by Global Teldata, in 
             accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules.82    

V.   ORDERING CLAUSES

                  31.    ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, 
             pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications 
             Act of 1934, as amended,83 and section 1.80 of the 
             Commission's rules,84 Global Teldata II, LLC is 
             hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A 
             FORFEITURE in the amount of $236,774 for willfully 
             and repeatedly violating the Act and the 
             Commission's rules.

                  32.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 
             section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,85 within 
             thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF 
             APPARENT LIABILITY, Global Teldata II, LLC SHALL 
             PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or 
             SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
             cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

                  33.    Payment of the forfeiture must be made 
             by check or similar instrument, payable to the 
             order of the Federal Communications Commission. 
             The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN 
             No. referenced above. Payment bycheck or money 
             order may be mailed to Federal Communications 
             Commission, P.O. Box358340,Pittsburgh, PA 15251-
             8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent 
             toMellon Bank/LB358340,500 Ross Street, Room 
             1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by wire 
             transfer may be made to ABA Number043000261, 
             receiving bankMellon Bank, and account number911-
             6106.

                  34.    The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF 
             APPARENT LIABILITY must be mailed to William H. 
             Davenport, Chief, Investigations and Hearings 
             Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
             Communications Commission, Room 4-A237, 445 12th 
             Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.  20554 and must 
             include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.

                  35.    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.

                  36.    Requests for payment of the full amount 
             of this NAL under an installment plan should be 
             sent to Chief, Credit and Management Center, 445 
             12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.  20554.86

                  37.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of 
             this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY AND ORDER shall 
             be sent by certified mail, return receipt 
             requested, to Darius B. Withers, Kelly Drye and 
             Warren LLP, Counsel to Global Teldata II, LLC, 1200 
             19th Street N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 
             20036; and Edward M. O'Reilly, Controller, Global 
             Teldata II, LLC, 4646 North Ravenswood Avenue, 
             Chicago, Illinois 60640.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                              Marlene H. Dortch
                              Secretary 

_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  64.1195.
2 47 C.F.R.  54.711(a), 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(B).
3 47 U.S.C.  254(d).  
4 47 C.F.R.  54.706(a).
5 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  151.
6 See Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report 
and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996, 
16024 (2000) (``Carrier Selection Order'').    
7 47 C.F.R.  64.1195.
8 Pursuant to the de minimis exception, contributors that owe 
less than $10,000 to the USF in any given year are not required 
to contribute to the fund or file Worksheets (annual or 
quarterly) for that year for purposes of the USF.  47 C.F.R.  
54.708.  Based on Global Teldata's reported revenue for 2003 as 
reported in its 2004 Form 499-A, it was a de minimis carrier in 
2003.  However, even though the de minimis exception excuses 
carriers from filing Worksheets for purposes of the USF, the 
rules still require carriers such as Global Teldata to file 
annual Worksheets for purposes of other regulatory programs, such 
as the Telecommunications Relay Service.  Id.  See also 47 C.F.R. 
 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(B) (requiring common carriers to submit 
Worksheets for the TRS Fund).  
9 See 47 U.S.C.  225(d)(3); 254(d).  In 1999, to streamline the 
administration of the programs and to ease the burden on 
regulatees, the Commission consolidated the information filing 
requirements for multiple telecommunications regulatory programs 
into the annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet.  See 1998 
Biennial Regulatory Review, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 16602 
(1999).  The next year the Commission revised the 
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet slightly to collect the 
additional information necessary to achieve its goal of 
establishing a central repository for interstate 
telecommunications providers by the least provider-burdensome 
method.  Carrier Selection Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16026.  
10 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended the Communications 
Act of 1934.  See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 
104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
11 47 U.S.C.  254(d).  
12 47 C.F.R.  54.706(b).  Beginning April 1, 2003, carrier 
contributions were based on a carrier's projected, rather than 
historical, revenues.  Id.  
13 Upon submission of a Form 499-A registration, the carrier is 
issued a filer identification number by USAC.  The filer 
identification number is then to be included on all further 
filings by the company and is used by the Commission and its 
administrators to track the carrier's contributions and invoices.  
Unless they qualify for the de minimis exception, see supra note 
8, interstate telecommunications carriers must file FCC Form 499-
Q quarterly, reporting revenue information by February 1, May 1, 
August 1 and November 1 of each year, and FCC Form 499-A 
annually, by April 1 of each year.  See Instructions for 
Completing the Worksheet for Filing Contributions to 
Telecommunications Relay Service, Universal Service, Number 
Administration and Local Number Portability Support Mechanisms, 
FCC Form 499, April 2004, at 9.
14 Individual universal service contribution amounts that are 
based upon quarterly filings are subject to an annual true-up.  
See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Petition for 
Reconsideration filed by AT&T, Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 5748 (2001); 47 C.F.R.  54.709(a).  
15 See Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19896,  5 (2003); 47 C.F.R.  
54.711(a) (``The Commission shall announce by Public Notice 
published in the Federal Register and on its website the manner 
of payment and the dates by which payments must be made.'').  
See, e.g., ``Proposed Third Quarter 2003 Contribution Factor,'' 
Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11442 (WCB 2003) (``Contribution 
payments are due on the date shown on the [USAC] invoice.'').  
The Act and our rules, however, do not condition payment on 
receipt of an invoice or other notice from USAC.  See 47 U.S.C.  
254(d); 47 C.F.R.  54.706(b).  A carrier that does not file may 
not receive an invoice from USAC, but is nonetheless required to 
contribute to the universal service fund, unless its revenues are 
considered de minimis.  Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19896,  5 & 
n.22.  The instructions for the Telecommunications Reporting 
Worksheet include tables for carriers to determine their annual 
contributions.  Global Teldata qualified for the de minimis 
exception in 2003 but not thereafter.  
16 47 C.F.R.  54.713.
17 47 C.F.R.  1.1910.  The rule went into effect on November 1, 
2004.  See ``FCC Announces Brief Delay in Enforcement of Red 
Light Rule,'' Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 19452 (2004).
18 See Letter from Darius B. Withers, Kelly Drye and Warren LLP, 
Counsel to Global Teldata II, LLC, to Gerald H. Chakerian, 
Attorney, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated November 17, 
2004 (``November 17, 2004 LOI Response'') at 1.     
19 See id.
20 See 47 C.F.R.  64.1195(a).
21 See Letter from Hugh Boyle, Chief Auditor, Investigations and 
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, to Global Teldata II, LLC, dated March 30, 2004 
(``March 30, 2004 Audit Letter'').  
22 See E-mail from  Erin R. Swansiger, Kelly Drye and Warren LLP, 
Counsel to Global Teldata II, LLC, to Hugh Boyle, Chief Auditor, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, dated May 25, 2004.   
23 See note 8, supra, regarding the de minimis exception for 
filing if a carrier's USF contribution in any given year is less 
than  $10,000.     
24 See Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Erin R. Swansiger, Kelly Drye and 
Warren LLP, Counsel to Global Teldata II, LLC, dated October 28, 
2004 (``October 28, 2004 LOI'').  
25 November 17, 2004 LOI Response (see note 18, supra). 
26 See id. (Inquiry Nos. 7-11).  For a description of the de 
minimis exception, see note 8, supra. 
27 See id. (Inquiry Nos.7-8) and Exhibits E & F.  These responses 
indicated that total telecommunications revenue in 2003 was 
$99,087 and cumulative telecommunications revenue from January to 
October 2004 was $204,016 (Global Teldata did not provide a 
month-by-month breakdown of these revenues).
28 See id. (Inquiry No. 14) and Exhibit G.  Global Teldata stated 
that it collected $27,459 for the USF in 2003 and $42,784 for the 
USF in 2004.  It did not specifically state whether it was aware 
of these collections at the time.    
29 See id. (Inquiry Nos. 7-8) and Exhibit E.  This filing was 
apparently intended to serve both as a late-filed registration 
that had been due since the beginning of business on April 1, 
2003, and as a late-filed annual 2004 Form 499-A Worksheet for 
2003 that had been due since April 1, 2004.  Global reiterated 
here that it was a de minimis carrier for the year 2003.   
30 See id. (Inquiry No. 8) and Exhibit F.  This filing was 
designated as a quarterly Worksheet due on November 1, 2004.    
31 Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations 
and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, to Darius B. Withers, Kelly Drye and Warren LLP, 
Counsel to Global Teldata II, LLC, dated June 28, 2005 (``June 
28, 2005 LOI''); Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Darius B. Withers, Kelly Drye and 
Warren LLP, Counsel to Global Teldata II, LLC, dated August 17, 
2005 (``August 17, 2005 LOI'').
32 See Letter from Darius B. Withers, Kelly Drye and Warren LLP, 
Counsel to Global Teldata II, LLC, to Gerald H. Chakerian, 
Attorney, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated July 8, 2005 
(``July 8, 2005 LOI Response'').
33 See Letter from Darius B. Withers, Kelly Drye and Warren LLP, 
Counsel to Global Teldata II, LLC, to Gerald H. Chakerian, 
Attorney, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated August 29, 2005 
(``August 29, 2005 LOI Response'').
34 Id. at 1 and Exhibit A.  Global Teldata's first quarterly 
Worksheet that was late-filed on November 17, 2004 contained this 
same error.  See July 8, 2005 LOI Response at Exhibit A; November 
17, 2004 LOI Response at Exhibit F.    
35 See July 8, 2005 LOI Response at Exhibit B.  This amount is 
consistent with the 2005 Annual Worksheet, filed on March 31, 
2005, that served as a true-up for 2004. 
36 See August 29, 2005 LOI Response at Exhibit A.       
37 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a)(1).
38 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1).
39 H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).
40 See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California 
Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 
4388 (1991) (``Southern California Broadcasting Co.'').
41 See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 
1359 (2001) (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, inter 
alia, a cable television operator's repeated signal leakage).
42 Callais Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd at 1362,  9; Southern 
California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388,  5.
43 47 U.S.C.  503(b); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f).
44 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC 
Rcd 7589, 7591,  4 (2002) (``SBC Forfeiture Order'') (forfeiture 
paid).
45 47 U.S.C.  254(d).
46 47 C.F.R.  54.706(a), 54.711(a), 64.1195.
47 47 C.F.R.  64.1195.
48 47 U.S.C.  254(d).
49 47 C.F.R.  64.1195.
50 As indicated above, Global Teldata was formed in a corporate 
reorganization of a predecessor entity on April 1, 2003.  See 
supra  7.  That entity had not registered with the Commission, 
see supra note 19, such that Global Teldata's period of 
noncompliance is likely to be even longer, as the registration 
requirement became effective in 2001.  See 66 Fed. Reg. 17083 
(March 29, 2001) (announcing that OMB-approved information 
collection requirement in section 64.1195 would take effect on 
April 2, 2001).
51 47 C.F.R.  64.1195.  The Commission adopted the registration 
requirement in section 64.1195(a) after finding that such a 
requirement would enable it to better monitor the entry of 
carriers into the interstate telecommunications market and any 
associated increases in slamming activity, and, among other 
things, would enhance the Commission's ability to take 
appropriate enforcement action against carriers that have 
demonstrated a pattern or practice of slamming.  See Carrier 
Selection Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16024  62. 
52 See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment 
of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Report and Order, 12 
FCC Rcd 17087, 17099,  22 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy 
Statement''), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``The 
Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know 
and comply with all of the Commission's rules.''); Telecom House, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, FCC 
05-168,  2005 WL 2233570 (F.C.C.) at  28 (released September 13, 
2005); InPhonic, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture and Order, FCC 05-145, 2005 WL 1750418 (F.C.C.) at  
25 (released July 25, 2005); Teletronics, Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, FCC 05-146, 2005 WL 
1750420 (F.C.C.) at  30 (released July 25, 2005).
53 See March 30, 2004 Audit Letter; October 28, 2004 LOI.  
54 AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 
21866, 21870-71, (2002); America's Tele-Network Corp., Order of 
Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 22350, 22355,  15 (2001); Coleman 
Enters., Inc. d/b/a/ Local Long Distance, Inc., Order of 
Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 24385, 24388,  8 (2000).  
55 The proposed forfeitures in this NAL relate only to violations 
occurring within a year of release of this NAL.
56 47 C.F.R.  54.711(a).  
57 Id.  In addition, although the de minimis exception set forth 
in section 54.708 of the Commission's rules excuses carriers from 
filing the Worksheets for purposes of USF, that exception is 
explicitly qualified by other rules that require carriers to file 
the annual Worksheet.  Id.  54.708.  Thus, to the extent that 
Global Teldata's LOI responses indicate that the company 
qualified for the exception in calendar year 2003, and therefore 
was not required to file either annual or quarterly forms 
relating to revenues from that year for purposes of USF, the 
company was still required to file the annual form relating to 
that year for other regulatory programs.  See, e.g., id.  
4.604(c)(5)(iii)(B).    
58 Sixty days prior to the start of each quarter, USAC is 
required to provide the Commission with a projection of the high 
cost, low income, schools and libraries, and rural health care 
funding requirements for the following quarter.  See 
www.universalservice.org/overview/filings.  Based on USAC's 
projection of the needs of the USF, and revenue projections from 
the registered carriers subject to universal service 
requirements, the Commission establishes a specific percentage of 
interstate and international end-user revenues that each subject 
telecommunications provider must contribute toward the USF.  This 
percentage is called the contribution factor.  The contribution 
factor, and, consequently, the amount owed to the USF by each 
affected telecommunications company, changes each quarter, 
depending on the needs of the USF and carrier-provided revenue 
projections.  See www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/quarter.  
Thus, in cases where a carrier, such as Global Teldata, fails to 
file required Worksheets reporting its revenue projections in a 
timely fashion, its revenues are excluded from the contribution 
base from which universal assessments are derived, and the 
economic burden of contributing falls disproportionately on 
carriers that have satisfied their reporting obligations.   
59 47 U.S.C.  254(d).
60 47 U.S.C.  254.  
61 47 C.F.R.  54.711, 64.604.
62 Moreover, as discussed in note 34, supra, Global Teldata's 
late-file Worksheet for this quarter understated 
telecommunications revenue by a wide margin.  See Globcom, Inc., 
18 FCC Rcd at 19901-2,  19-20 (finding apparent liability for 
forfeiture for reporting inaccurate information).   
63 47 U.S.C.  254(d); 47 C.F.R.  54.706.
64 47 C.F.R.  54.706(c).  
65 See 47 C.F.R.  54.708.      
66 Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19903,  26 (2003).
67 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a)(2).
68 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(2).  
Effective September 7, 2004, the Commission amended its rules to 
increase the maximum penalties to account for inflation since the 
last adjustment of the penalty rates.  See Amendment of Section 
1.90 of the Commission's Rules, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945, 10946  
6 (2004).
69 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100,  27; 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b).
70 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(6)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(c)(3).
71 See, e.g., Carrera Communications, LP, Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture and Order, FCC 05-147, 2005 WL 1750417 
(F.C.C.) at  24 (released July 25, 2005); InPhonic, Inc., Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, FCC 05-145, 2005 
WL 1750418 (F.C.C.) at  24 (released July 25, 2005); 
Teletronics, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
and Order, FCC 05-146, 2005 WL 1750420 (F.C.C.) at  28 (released 
July 25, 2005); Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903; Roadrunner 
Transp., Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671 (2000); 
Liab. of E. Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 F.C.C. 
2d 37 (1967).

72 See Telecom House, Inc., 2005 WL 2233570 (F.C.C.) at  29 
(released Sept. 13, 2005); InPhonic, Inc., 2005 WL at 1750418 
(F.C.C.) at  26; Teletronics, Inc., 2005 WL 1750420 (F.C.C.) at  
 30.
73 See, e.g., InPhonic, Inc., 2005 WL at 1750418 (F.C.C.) at  
26.
74 Id.at  26.
75 Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19905.  See also BCE Nexxia 
Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, FCC 
05-167, 2005 WL 2233569 (F.C.C.) at  19 (released Sept. 13, 
2005); Telecom House, Inc., 2005 WL 2233570 (F.C.C.) at  30; 
Carrera Communications, Inc., 2005 WL 1750417 (F.C.C.) at  25; 
InPhonic, Inc., 2005 WL 1750418 (F.C.C.) at  27; Teletronics, 
Inc., 2005 WL 1750420 (F.C.C.) at  31.
76 See 47 U.S.C.  254(d).
77 See Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903-19904,  25-27.  See 
also BCE Nexxia Corp., 2005 WL 2233569 (F.C.C.) at  20; Telecom 
House, Inc., 2005 WL 2233570 (F.C.C.) at  31; Telecom Mgmt., 
Inc., Notice of Apparent liability for Forfeiture, FCC 05-156, 
2005 WL 1949643 (F.C.C.) at   17 (released Aug. 12, 2005); 
Carrera Communications, Inc., 2005 WL 1750417 (F.C.C.) at  26; 
InPhonic, Inc., 2005 WL 1750418 (F.C.C.) at  28; Teletronics, 
Inc., 2005 WL 1750420 (F.C.C.) at  32.
78 See, e.g., Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903-19904,  25-27.  
See also BCE Nexxia Corp., 2005 WL 2233569 (F.C.C.) at  21; 
Telecom House, Inc., 2005 WL 2233570 (F.C.C.) at  32; Telecom 
Mgmt., Inc., 2005 WL 1949643 (F.C.C.) at   18; Carrera 
Communications, Inc., 2005 WL 1750417 (F.C.C.) at   27; 
InPhonic, Inc., 2005 WL 1750418 (F.C.C.) at   29; OCMC, Inc., 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 05-157, 2005 WL 
1949644 (F.C.C.) at  19; Teletronics, Inc., 2005 WL 1750420 
(F.C.C.) at  32.
79 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099; see also 47 
C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).
80 47 C.F.R.  64.1195.
81 See Business Options, Inc., Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 2916 
(2003); NOS Communications, Inc., Affinity Network Incorporated 
and NOSVA Limited Partnership, Consent Decree, 2003 WL 22439710 
(2003).
82 47 C.F.R.  1.1910.
83 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
84 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
85 See 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f)(3).
86 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.