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


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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

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

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

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


                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554

     In the Matter of                        File No. EB-11-TC-019        
     Norristown Telephone Company, LLC       NAL/Acct. No.: 201132170022  
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       FRN: 0013788369              

                  Notice of apparent liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: June 7, 2011 Released: June 16, 2011

   By the Commission:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Norristown Telephone Company, LLC ("Norristown" or "Company") has
       apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 201(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or
       "Act"), by "cramming" monthly charges for its dial-around long
       distance service on consumers' local telephone bills without
       authorization of any kind from them. Based upon our review of the
       facts and surrounding circumstances, we find that Norristown is
       apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture in the amount of one
       million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000).

   II. background

    2. Cramming, the practice of adding charges to a customer's local
       telephone bill without the customer's authorization, results in
       significant consumer harm. Charges can often range from $2.99 to as
       much as $19.99 per month and can go undetected by consumers for many
       months or longer because they are not generally disclosed clearly or
       conspicuously on the bill. The cramming entity can be the customer's
       own local exchange carrier ("LEC") or an unaffiliated third party such
       as Norristown, in the instant case. The charges can be for additional
       telephone services, voice mail and similar services, or for other
       unrelated products and services such as chat lines, diet plans, and

    3. The Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") began its investigation of
       Norristown on March 15, 2011, by issuing a letter of inquiry to the
       Company requesting information and documents relating to its charges
       for long distance service. In its response, Norristown represented
       that it provides domestic interexchange telecommunications service on
       a resale basis through a "dial-around" service plan. Norristown's
       FreeCallZone Plan offers 284 minutes of domestic interexchange calling
       per month for $13.90, plus a monthly billing fee and applicable
       Universal Service Fund surcharges. Minutes used in excess of the 284
       minutes are billed at the rate of $.049 per minute.

    4. Norristown's process for billing consumers involves three parties:
       Norristown; its billing aggregator, Billing Service Group ("BSG"); and
       the LEC that issues the bill to the consumer. BSG uses the name "USBI"
       in billing for long distance services. The LEC is compensated by
       BSG/USBI for placing the charges on the consumers' bills; BSG/USBI is
       paid by Norristown to manage billing requests and payments between the
       LEC and Norristown; and Norristown ultimately receives the money
       collected from the consumers who pay the charges. Generally, the
       third-party carrier supplies only a consumer's telephone number and
       the amount to be charged to the billing aggregator, which directs the
       LEC to place the charge on the consumer's telephone bill. Proof of
       consumer authorization is not provided by the third-party carrier nor
       required by the LEC.

    5. Norristown contends that it markets its service exclusively on the
       Internet through marketing partners who present the offer via
       solicitation, keyword search, or banners. Since [REDACTED]. Online
       enrollment forms used to sign up customers allow for the input of the
       consumer's first name, last name, address, home telephone number,
       email address, and date of birth. The enrollment form contains
       Norristown's terms and conditions and notifies the customers that they
       are signing up for a long distance plan for which they will be billed
       on their telephone bill.

    6. As part of its investigation, the Bureau examined [REDACTED]
       complaints that had been filed by consumers about Norristown's
       service. These included complaints that had been filed not only with
       the FCC, but also with state regulatory authorities, Norristown's
       billing aggregator, or with Norristown directly. All of the
       complainants contended that Norristown had charged them for service
       without their authorization.

    7. These complaints notwithstanding, Norristown claims that it has
       policies and procedures for verifying service requests. According to
       Norristown, a "Confirmation Page" requires customers to reconfirm the
       personal data entered on the enrollment form and discloses the billing
       information. Norristown contends that it validates the orders by
       comparing the name listed on the order form with the name registered
       to the telephone number; examining the email address; and verifying
       that the state, zip code, and telephone area code match. Norristown
       asserts that the order is accepted only if the customer's last name,
       address, and telephone number match.

    8. According to Norristown, if the order passes the Company's validation
       process, it then sends three emails to confirm the order, describe the
       service, how to use the service and how to cancel it. The consumer is
       not required to confirm that the emails were received or to otherwise
       respond to the emails before Norristown begins charging for the

   III. discussion

          A. Violation of Section 201(b) of the Act

    9. Section 201(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that "[a]ll
       charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in
       connection with [interstate or foreign] communication service [by wire
       or radio], shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge,
       practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable
       is hereby declared to be unlawful...." The Commission has found that
       the inclusion of unauthorized charges and fees on consumers' telephone
       bills is an "unjust and unreasonable" practice under section 201(b).

   10. We find that Norristown has willfully and repeatedly placed, or caused
       to be placed, charges on consumers' telephone bills for services the
       consumers did not request or authorize. As indicated above, each of
       the [REDACTED] consumer complaints that the Bureau reviewed - whether
       they were filed with the FCC, state regulatory authorities, or with
       Norristown directly - contends that Norristown charged consumers for
       service without their authorization. The complainants consistently
       state they did not sign up for Norristown's service, did not have any
       contact with Norristown prior to discovering the charges, and in many
       cases, do not even know the person whom Norristown alleges authorized
       the service. Moreover, many of the complainants observed that they had
       long distance (often unlimited) service with another carrier and
       therefore would have no need to pay for additional service with
       Norristown. For example, Complainant [REDACTED]. Complainant

   11. The [REDACTED] complaint is typical of the complaints filed against
       Norristown. For example, Complainant [REDACTED]. Complainant
       [REDACTED]. Complainant [REDACTED].

   12. In some cases, the line for which Norristown was purportedly providing
       service was not even in use as a telephone line. For example,
       Complainant [REDACTED]. Complainant [REDACTED].

   13. The complainants' contention that Norristown "crammed" charges for its
       dial-around long distance service on their bills is corroborated by
       the fact that, between April 2010 and March 2011, Norristown placed
       charges on a total of nearly [REDACTED] monthly telephone bills.
       Nevertheless, in response to our LOI request that the Company provide
       information about its "customers" who actually used its service,
       Norristown stated [REDACTED]. We find this implausible given that
       Norristown claims to provide customers with 284 minutes per month for
       a monthly fee and that customers will incur additional charges after
       those minutes are used - unless, of course, it is unnecessary because
       so few "customers" actually use the service.

   14. To the extent it actually uses them, Norristown's validation and
       verification processes are clearly inadequate to confirm that the
       person who "enrolled" in its plan, i.e., the one whom Norristown will
       charge for service, in fact authorized the service. As indicated,
       Norristown asserts that it confirms every service order using a
       five-stage validation process to ensure that the customer has both
       ordered the services and authorized billing for the services. The fact
       remains that, in many cases, the name and address in Norristown's
       enrollment records do not match the name and address of the customer
       who was charged for service. Similarly, the email address used to sign
       up for service often does not belong to the customer who is billed for
       the service. The only information that consistently belonged to the
       customer whom the Company charged was, in fact, his or her telephone
       number. We find no evidence that, as Norristown suggests, complainants
       commonly realized "that they did in fact sign up for the service or
       someone else in the household signed up for and authorized the
       service." Based on our review of the record, it appears that any
       validation procedure that Norristown actually performed simply
       verified the general existence of the telephone number and that the
       number was a working number - and in no way verified that an enrollee
       actually in any way intended to subscribe to Norristown's dial-around

   15. Norristown's claims that it "verifies" a service request by sending
       emails to the email address identified on the form is likewise of no
       consequence. The process does not require any action on the part of
       the consumer to confirm either that the consumer received the email or
       that the consumer signed up for or agreed to be charged for
       Norristown's service. Indeed, many of the complainants assert they
       never received any emails or other communications from Norristown
       regarding its long distance service. This would not be surprising
       given that, as noted above, the email address in Norristown's records
       is generally not the consumer's. Even if a consumer did, in fact,
       receive this welcome material, it is possible, if not probable, that
       he or she might reasonably discard the material as "junk" mail or
       spam, given that the consumer did not create a relationship with, or
       even know of the existence of, Norristown. On these facts, if a
       consumer did not authorize Norristown's service, the mere act of
       sending emails without requiring a response from the consumer is not
       sufficient "verification."

   16. Furthermore, [REDACTED]. For example, Norristown's records pertaining
       to Complainant [REDACTED]. Either the response to the LOI stating that
       the order would be cancelled and the customer not billed for
       undeliverable email is inaccurate or Norristown internally recorded
       "undeliverable email" as the reason for cancellation when the actual
       reason for cancellation was that the consumer discovered the
       unauthorized charges and complained.

   17. Norristown's success in what appears to be a constructively fraudulent
       enterprise seems to rely on the fact that individuals and businesses
       the Company enrolled in its service failed to notice the unauthorized
       charges in their multipage telephone bills and so simply proceeded to
       pay them, often unaware that they contained charges from an entity
       other than their own telephone company. The charges were often listed
       on the last pages of the bill and/or did not contain clear
       descriptions of the services provided. It would be difficult for
       someone who had never heard of Norristown or "USBI" (the billing
       aggregator) to know that there were unauthorized charges from another
       company on his or her telephone bill.

   18. If and when consumers ever discovered the charges, they were required
       to expend significant time and effort to attempt to have charges
       removed from their bills. In many cases we reviewed, Norristown made
       it difficult for consumers to cancel the service and obtain full
       refunds of the unauthorized charges. For example, Complainant
       [REDACTED]. Complainant [REDACTED].

   19. In other cases, Norristown only offered consumers a partial refund.
       For instance, Complainant [REDACTED]. Complainant [REDACTED].
       Complainant [REDACTED].

   20. Based on the record, we conclude that Norristown apparently has
       willfully and repeatedly placed, or caused to be placed, charges on
       complainants' telephone bills that they never authorized. The facts
       suggest that Norristown engaged in this conduct deliberately. To the
       extent it did not, we find that Norristown either knew, or reasonably
       should have known, through numerous customer inquiries and complaints
       that many of its customers had not authorized service. Norristown
       nevertheless proceeded to charge these consumers for months and
       sometimes years. Norristown's dismissive responses to the consumer
       complaints is further evidence that it apparently is deliberately
       billing consumers for services they did not authorize. Accordingly, we
       find that Norristown's cramming constitutes an unjust and unreasonable
       practice and demonstrates apparent willful and repeated violations of
       section 201(b) of the Act.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act

   21. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act states that any person who 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 by
       common carriers. 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."  Although the forfeiture
       guidelines do not establish a forfeiture amount for unjust or
       unreasonable practices, such as the imposition of unauthorized charges
       on consumers' telephone bills, the guidelines do state that, ". . .
       any omission of a specific rule violation from the. . . [forfeiture
       guidelines]. . . should not signal that the Commission considers any
       unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant." The Commission
       retains the discretion to depart from the guidelines and issue
       forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture
       authority contained in section 503 of the Act.

   22. In Long Distance Direct, Inc. ("LDDI"), the Commission found that the
       "imposition of unauthorized charges on consumers' telephone bills is a
       practice which is unjust and unreasonable within the meaning of
       section 201(b) of the Act," and assessed a $40,000 penalty for each
       cramming violation investigated in that case. Consistent with LDDI, we
       find that each charge Norristown caused to be placed on a consumer's
       bill without the consumer's authorization constitutes an independent
       unjust and unreasonable practice, and thus a separate and distinct
       violation of section 201(b) of the Act. There appear to be thousands
       of such violations in this case for which the Commission is empowered
       to assess a penalty.

   23. Weighing the facts before us and taking into account the extent and
       gravity of Norristown's egregious conduct, as well as its culpability
       and information in the current record about its revenues, we find that
       a total forfeiture amount of $1,500,000 is appropriate under the
       specific circumstances of this case.  As noted above, Norristown
       placed unauthorized charges of at least $13.90 on nearly [REDACTED]
       telephone bills over a twelve-month period alone and therefore billed
       nearly $[REDACTED] to consumers over that time period through its
       cramming operation. The forfeiture clearly must exceed this amount in
       order to serve as an adequate deterrent and reflect the apparently
       intentional nature of Norristown's conduct. We therefore propose a
       forfeiture in the amount of $1,500,000. In the event Norristown
       continues to engage in conduct that apparently violates section
       201(b)'s prohibition against unjust and unreasonable practices, such
       apparent violations could result in future NALs proposing
       substantially greater forfeitures and revocation of Norristown's
       operating authority. Other third-party service providers are also on
       notice that practices such as those engaged in by Norristown are
       unjust and unreasonable, and that we may propose more significant
       forfeitures in the future as high as is necessary, within the range of
       our statutory authority, to ensure that such companies do not charge
       consumers for unauthorized services.


   24. We have determined that Norristown Telephone, LLC apparently violated
       section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further
       determined that Norristown Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a
       forfeiture in the amount of $1,500,000.

   V. Ordering Clauses

   25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and
       section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that
       Norristown Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT
       LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,500,000, for willful
       and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:

   26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of
       this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Norristown
       Telephone, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or
       SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of
       the proposed forfeiture.

   27. 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/Account Number and FRN 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). Norristown Telephone, LLC will
       also send electronic notification to on the date
       said payment is made. 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.

   28. The written statement, if any, must be mailed both to: Marlene H.
       Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,
       SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau -
       Telecommunications Consumers Division; and to Richard A. Hindman,
       Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement
       Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
       Washington, DC 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in
       the caption. Documents sent by overnight mail (other than United
       States Postal Service Express Mail) must be addressed to: Marlene H.
       Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the
       Secretary, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Hand or
       messenger-delivered mail should be directed, without envelopes, to:
       Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
       Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554
       (deliveries accepted Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
       only). See for further instructions
       on FCC filing addresses.

   29. 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; 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.

   30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
       Requested and First Class mail to Norristown Telephone Company, LLC,
       attention: Steven A. Augustino, Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP, Washington
       Harbour, Suite 400, 3050 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007-5108.


   Marlene H. Dortch

   Norristown's principal address is 470 Norristown Road, Suite 201, Blue
   Bell, Pennsylvania 19422. Thomas Glynn is listed as Norristown's President
   and CEO. Frank Scardino is listed as the "Managing Member" of Norristown.
   Accordingly, all references in this NAL to "Norristown" also encompass Mr.
   Glynn and Mr. Scardino and all other principals and officers of this
   entity, as well as the corporate entity itself. Mr. Scardino also owns
   FreeSpark, LLC, a company that provides marketing and sales support for
   Norristown. Main Street Telephone Company, which is the subject of another
   enforcement action we take today, is owned by the same individuals, has
   the same address, telephone number, and fax number as Norristown, and the
   same "regulatory compliance" contact.

   47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   See "BBB Issues Warning on Web Companies Linked to Adept Results," Nov.
   11, 2009,

   See Letter from Richard A. Hindman, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Norristown Telephone Company, LLC
   (Mar. 15, 2011) ("LOI").

   See Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Counsel for Norristown Telephone
   Company, LLC, to Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division Chief,
   Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, (Apr. 14,
   2011) ("Response to LOI").

   See Response to LOI at 7. "Dial-around" long distance service allows a
   telephone subscriber to bypass (i.e., dial around) the subscriber's
   preselected long distance telephone carrier, if any, and instead use the
   dial-around carrier's long distance service for a particular telephone
   call. For each telephone call, the subscriber must use the dial-around
   carrier's number and, in some instances, enter a PIN to connect the call.




   Id. at 11. [REDACTED]. Id.

   Id. at 10.


   Norristown provided a spreadsheet listing a total of [REDACTED] complaints
   but provided the supporting documentation for only [REDACTED] of them. The
   [REDACTED] complaints provided by Norristown were received by the company
   in writing or by email.


   Id. at 13-14.

   Id. at 14-15.


   47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   See Long Distance Direct, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3297, 3302, P: 14 (2000) ("LDDI
   Forfeiture Order") (finding that the company's practices of cramming
   membership and other unauthorized fees on consumer telephone bills was an
   unjust and unreasonable practice in connection with communication

   Indeed, we note that much of the identifying information Norristown
   requests of a person when signing up for its long distance service - name,
   address, email address, telephone number, and date of birth - can be
   obtained through the purchase of aggregated lists of consumers that are
   commercially sold or from free internet websites such as
   Nothing within Norristown's sign-up webpage prevents the individual who is
   inputting the data from using someone else's identifying information or
   otherwise falsifying that data. If the person signing up for the
   Norristown service inputs someone else's telephone number, the person
   associated with that telephone number will be billed by Norristown
   regardless of whether the other information in the application is correct.

   Complaint from [REDACTED]. See also Complaint from [REDACTED].

   Complaint from [REDACTED].

   Complaint from [REDACTED]. Norristown recorded the reason for the
   cancellation as [REDACTED].

   Complaint from [REDACTED].

   Complaint from [REDACTED]. Norristown recorded the reason for the
   cancellation as [REDACTED].

   Complaint from [REDACTED]. See also Complaint from [REDACTED].

   Complaint from [REDACTED].

   The number of billed customers per month during the twelve-month period
   ending April 1, 2011 fluctuated from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED]. Response to
   LOI at 8.

   Id. at 8-9. Norristown went on to say that [REDACTED]. Id.

   See Response to LOI at 13.

   Despite Norristown's contention that the order is only accepted if the
   last name, address, and telephone number match, see Response to LOI at 14,
   in many cases the names and addresses of the person "authorizing" the
   service do not match the telephone number and are not the name and address
   of the person billed for the service. See, e.g., [REDACTED]. The fact that
   the name and address in Norristown's records do not match the name and
   address of the person billed for the service shows that even a cursory
   examination of the authorization would have determined that it was
   invalid. Nevertheless, because the so-called authorizations contain names
   and addresses that are publicly available information, matching the billed
   party's name and address is no indication that the authorization is valid.

   See, e.g., Complaint from [REDACTED].

   Response to LOI at 16.

   See Response to LOI at 14 ("If the first email (the "Confirmation Email")
   is deemed to be undeliverable, then the order is cancelled.")

   Complaint from [REDACTED]. See also Complaint from [REDACTED]; Complaint
   from [REDACTED]; Complaint from [REDACTED].

   A practice that "convey[s] insufficient information as to the company's
   identity, rates, practices, and range of services" may constitute a
   violation of section 201(b). See Telecommunications Research & Action
   Center & Consumer Action, 4 FCC Rcd 2157, 2159 P: 14 (Com.Car.Bur. 1989).

   Complaint from [REDACTED]. See also Complaint from [REDACTED]; Complaint
   from [REDACTED]; Complaint from [REDACTED].

   Complaint from [REDACTED].

   See Complaint from [REDACTED]. See also Complaint from [REDACTED].

   See Complaint from [REDACTED]; see also Complaint from [REDACTED].

   See Complaint from [REDACTED].

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). See also  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). In 2008, the
   Commission amended section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
   1.80(b)(2), to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts in accordance with
   the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection
   Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S: 2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80
   of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) (adjusting the maximum statutory
   amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,300,000 to

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

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules
   to Incorporate the Forfeiture Policy Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC
   Rcd 17087, 17099, P: 22 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); recon.
   denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099, P: 22.

   See Long Distance Direct, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 314, 333, P: 25 (1998).

   Id. at 337, P: 30.

   As noted in the text, Norristown apparently caused unauthorized charges to
   be placed on more than [REDACTED] bills dated between April 2010 and April
   2011. More than [REDACTED] of these bills date from June 2010 - within one
   year of the instant NAL - and thus remain actionable under the statute of
   limitations set forth in section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. S:

   The $1.5 million penalty we propose is the equivalent to applying a
   $40,000 penalty to 38 violations, but as indicated above, the record shows
   that Norristown's conduct involves a considerably higher number of
   violations during the actionable time period.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   (Continued from previous page)



   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-88



   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-88