Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554

                                         )   File No. EB-09-IH-0116      
     In the Matter of                                                    
                                         )   NAL/Acct. No.               
     AllCom                                  201032080032                
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       FRN No. 0020037487          


   Adopted: July 15, 2010 Released: July 16, 2010

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that AllCom apparently violated section 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the
       Act by failing to respond to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau
       ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents. Based on our
       review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter, we find
       that AllCom is apparently liable for a total forfeiture of $20,000. 
       We also order AllCom to respond fully to the Enforcement Bureau's
       Letter of Inquiry within ten days of release of this NAL. 


    2. The Commission's rules require entities that provide interstate
       telecommunications services to pay annual regulatory fees; to
       contribute to the Universal Service Fund ("USF") and
       Telecommunications Relay Service ("TRS") Fund; to contribute to
       cost-recovery mechanisms for North American Numbering Plan ("NANP")
       administration and Local Number Portability ("LNP") administration; to
       file information as set forth on the Telecommunications Reporting
       Worksheet (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q); to file registration
       information; to confirm the registration of all carrier-customers
       (i.e., resellers); and to receive authorization from the Commission
       prior to commencing international telecommunications service.

    3. The Bureau received allegations in 2009 that Allcom may be operating
       in violation of the Commission's Universal Service Fund filing,
       contribution and other related rules and that Allcom may be providing
       international telecommunications service without Commission
       authorization. On its website, Allcom claims to provide telephone
       service, voicemail, conference calling, paging, and International
       Public Access Numbers through its Universal Office and Genie products.
       On July 28, 2009, the Bureau initiated an investigation into AllCom's
       alleged violations of sections 1.1157, 52.17, 52.32, 54.706, 54.711,
       63.12(d), 63.18, 64.604, and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules, and
       Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act")
       by issuing the LOI directing AllCom, among other things, to provide
       information regarding these obligations and directing Allcom to
       respond by August 27, 2009. The Bureau directed the LOI to Thomas
       Skala, the Chief Executive Officer for AllCom, based on information on
       the Allcom webpage and sent the LOI via certified mail with a return
       receipt requested to Allcom's headquarters. The return receipt was
       received at Allcom and signed on July 31, 2009. AllCom failed to
       respond to the LOI.

    4. Shortly after the due date, Bureau staff telephoned Mr. Skala and
       spoke with him. During that conversation, staff informed Mr. Skala
       that the Bureau was investigating Allcom's compliance with various
       Commission requirements, that it had sent the LOI to his attention and
       that the response was past due. Mr. Skala contended that AllCom was
       not within the Commission's jurisdiction but nonetheless committed to
       submitting a response the following week. After the conversation,
       staff sent a second copy of the LOI to Mr. Skala via e-mail at an
       e-mail address he provided, again directing him to respond. To date,
       the Bureau has not received a response from AllCom.


    5. Under section 503(b)(1) 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. In order to impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission
       must issue a notice of apparent liability, the notice must be
       received, 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. The Commission will then issue a forfeiture
       if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has
       willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission order or

    6. We conclude that AllCom apparently violated Commission orders by
       failing to respond to the LOI. Sections 4(i), 4(j), 218, and 403 of
       the Act afford the Commission broad authority to investigate the
       entities it regulates. Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to
       "issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be
       necessary in the execution of its functions," and section 4(j) states
       that "the Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as
       will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends
       of justice." Section 218 of the Act authorizes the Commission to
       "obtain from . . . carriers . . . full and complete information
       necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry out
       the objects for which it was created." Section 403 likewise grants the
       Commission "full authority and power to institute an inquiry, on its
       own motion . . . relating to the enforcement of any of the provisions
       of this Act."

    7. In the LOI, the Bureau directed AllCom to provide certain documents
       and information to enable the Bureau to perform its enforcement
       function and evaluate possible violations of sections 1.1157, 52.17,
       52.32, 54.706, 54.711, 63.12(d), 63.18, 64.604, and 64.1195 of the
       Commission's rules, and Section 214 of the Act. The LOI was sent via
       certified mail, with a return receipt requested, on July 28, 2009. The
       LOI specifically warned AllCom that failure to respond to the LOI
       could constitute a violation of the Act or the Commission's rules.
       Nevertheless, AllCom failed to respond by the due date or request an
       extension of time in which to meet its obligations under the LOI. The
       Bureau staff then contacted Mr. Skala, who committed to respond to the
       LOI, after which staff sent another copy of the LOI directly to Mr.
       Skala. Allcom has not provided any response. Therefore, we conclude
       that AllCom's failures to respond to the Bureau's inquiries constitute
       apparent violations of a Commission order.

    8. Section 503(b)(1) 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. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of
       the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to
       $150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up
       to a statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to
       act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the
       factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) 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," and our forfeiture guidelines.

    9. The forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000
       for failure to respond to a Commission communication. As discussed
       above, AllCom failed to respond to our LOI despite several attempts to
       elicit a response. We find that AllCom's failure to respond to the LOI
       is a violation of the Commission's rules. Misconduct of this type
       exhibits a disregard for the Commission's authority that cannot be
       tolerated and, more importantly, threatens to compromise the
       Commission's ability to adequately investigate violations of its
       rules.  In this case, the misconduct inhibits our ability to
       adequately detect and deter potential rule violations in areas of
       critical importance to the Commission, i.e., the reporting and
       contribution requirements for the Commission's regulatory programs.
       Prompt, sworn responses to Bureau inquiry letters are critical to the
       Commission's enforcement function.

   10. Consistent with Commission precedent for violations of this nature, we
       find Allcom's failure on multiple occasions to cooperate with the
       Bureau's investigation and respond to the LOI warrants a sizable
       proposed forfeiture. In the past, we have proposed forfeiture as high
       as $15,000 for a company that submitted a substantially late response
       that lacked the required supporting affidavit or declaration, and
       forfeitures of $20,000 for companies that have failed to respond
       entirely. In this case, AllCom never responded to the LOI despite
       receiving two copies and after its CEO spoke to Bureau staff and
       represented that the company would respond. Taking into account the
       factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we conclude
       that a $20,000 proposed forfeiture is justified in light of AllCom's
       apparent failure to provide a response to the LOI.


   11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and
       section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that AllCom
       amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and
       the Commission's rules.

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
       Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
       PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
       statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed

   13. 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. Nos. and FRN No. referenced above. 
       Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
       Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
       Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
       Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
       63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
       credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
        When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
       block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
       block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under
       an installment plan should be sent to:  Chief Financial Officer -
       Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
       D.C.  20554.   Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk
       at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: with any questions
       regarding payment procedures. Allcom will also send electronic
       notification within forty-eight (48) hours of the date said payment is
       made to and .

   14. The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
       FORFEITURE AND ORDER must be mailed to Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief,
       Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330,
       Washington, D.C. 20554 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced
       above. Global NAPs California, Inc. also will e-mail an electronic
       copy of its response to and

   15. 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.

       FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER shall be sent by certified mail, return
       receipt requested, to Thomas Skala, Chief Executive Officer, AllCom,
       4570 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 23-221, Las Vegas, NV 89119.


   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 218, 403.

   Letter from Trent B. Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Thomas Skala, Chief Executive
   Officer, AllCom (July 27, 2008) ("LOI").

   See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1157, 52.17, 52.32, 54.706, 54.711, 63.12(d), 63.18,
   64.604, and 64.1195.

   See AllCom's web site also indicates that it
   provides credit card services with its GenieCard Visa(R) Prepaid Card and
   internet services. See and

   See LOI at 1.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. S:
   503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. S: 1464). 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. 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). The legislative history to
   section 312(f)(1) of the Act indicates that this definition of willful
   applies to both sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
   97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the
   term in the section 503(b) context. See, e.g., Application for Review of
   Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC
   Rcd 4387, 4387-88, P: 5 (1991) ("Southern California Broadcasting"). The
   Commission may also assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely
   repeated, and not willful. See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand
   Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16
   FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, P: 10 (2001) ("Callais Cablevision") (issuing a Notice
   of Apparent Liability for, inter alia, a cable television operator's
   repeated signal leakage).  "Repeated" means that the act was committed or
   omitted more than once. Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at
   4388, P: 5; Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, P: 9.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f).

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc.,  Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591, P: 4 (2002) ("SBC Forfeiture Order").

   47 U.S.C. S: 154(i).

   47 U.S.C. S: 154(j).

   47 U.S.C. S: 218.

   47 U.S.C. S: 403.

   See LOI at 8.

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7599-7600, P:P: 23-28 (2002) ($100,000
   forfeiture for egregious and intentional misconduct, i.e., refusing to
   attest to truthfulness and accuracy of responses to LOI); Globcom, Inc.,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893,
   19898 n. 36 (2003) ("Globcom NAL") (subsequent history omitted) (delayed
   response to an LOI considered dilatory behavior that may result in future
   sanctions); BigZoo.Com Corporation, Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3954
   (Enf. Bur. 2005) ($20,000 forfeiture for failure of an entity to provide
   any response to a USF LOI); American Family Association, Licensee of
   Station KBMP(FM), Enterprise, Kansas, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 14072 (Enf. Bur. 2004) ($3,000 forfeiture for a
   partial response to an LOI); World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc.,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 18545 (Enf. Bur.
   2003) ($10,000 forfeiture for a non-responsive reply to an LOI); Donald W.
   Kaminski, Jr., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd
   10707 (Enf. Bur. 2001) ($4,000 forfeiture after individual refused to
   respond to an LOI).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(2).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); see also
   Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of
   Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). The
   Commission most recently adjusted the maximum statutory forfeiture amounts
   for inflation effective September 2, 2008.  See 73 FR 44663-5. Apparent
   violations which occurred before that date were subject to lower statutory

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures.


   See e.g. Global NAPs California, Inc., DA 09-2375, P: 29 (rel. Nov. 12,
   2009) (Global Naps Forfeiture Order).

   Communications Options, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   22 FCC Rcd 13680, 13687-13688, P: 21 (2007).

   See, e.g., Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3954 (Enf.
   Bur. 2005); QuickLink Telecom, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 14464
   (Enf. Bur. 2005).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1290



                                 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1290