Click here for Microsoft Word Version
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
) File No. ENF 99-10
Vista Services Corporation )
) NAL/Acct. No. 916EF0005
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture )
ORDER OF FORFEITURE
Adopted: October 18, 2000 Released:
October 23, 2000
By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a
In this Order, we assess a forfeiture of $680,000
against Vista Group International, Inc. (``Vista'') for willful
or repeated violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the ``Act''), and implementing Commission rules and
orders. We find that Vista willfully or repeatedly violated
section 258 of the Act by changing the preferred interexchange
carriers designated by fourteen consumers without their
authorization (a practice commonly referred to as ``slamming'').1
The facts and circumstances leading to the issuance of
our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') are
fully recited in the NAL and need not be reiterated at length.2
Between September 1, 1998 and July 30, 1999, the Commission
processed hundreds of consumer complaints regarding Vista. The
Commission investigated eighteen of these complaints. Each of
the complainants contended that Vista converted his or her
preferred interexchange carrier (``PIC'') without authorization
and provided sworn statements and evidence to that effect.
Seven of the complaints forming the basis of the NAL
involved allegations that the complainants' respective PICs were
changed without the complainants' authorization through the use
of telemarketers who misrepresented material facts about Vista's
services. These complaints suggested a pattern of marketing
practices designed to disguise the nature of the sales calls or
to prevent consumers from understanding that Vista was seeking to
change their PICs. The remaining eleven complaints involved
Vista's switching consumers whose accounts it had purchased from
ATS, another entity. Vista admits that these purchased accounts
were not verified according to the Commission's rules.
In the NAL, based on our review of the facts and
circumstances surrounding these violations, we found that Vista
was apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture of $80,000 for
each of the seven complaints involving allegations of slamming
through misleading sales and verification practices. In
addition, we found that Vista was apparently liable for a
proposed forfeiture of $40,000 for each of the other eleven
complaints. In total, we proposed a forfeiture of $1,000,0003
for Vista's apparent violation of section 258 of the Act4 and the
Commission's rules and orders.5 Vista filed a response to the
NAL on September 30, 1999, challenging the conclusions in the
In its Response to the NAL, Vista does not deny that it
submitted PIC-change orders to the complainants' local exchange
carriers,6 but does contest the Commission's finding of apparent
liability for willful or repeated violations of our rules
governing PIC-change conversions. Vista contests liability for
each of the eighteen complaints, arguing that: 1) the Commission
has not proved that all of the PIC changes were unauthorized and
unverified; 2) Vista's telemarketers were independent contractors
who allegedly exceeded their authority; 3) alleged deceptive
marketing activities are not within the Commission's
jurisdiction; and, 4) for the complaints emanating from the
customer list that Vista bought from another carrier, the
Commission does not have enough facts to determine whether that
carrier properly effected the PIC changes, and Vista has no means
to secure that information. Vista also contests the amount of
the proposed forfeiture as excessive, due to the controls it
allegedly instituted to prevent abuses in its telemarketing
program, and Vista's alleged cessation of all its telemarketing
activities in November, 1998, months before the Vista NAL was
issued. We address Vista's arguments below.
A. Slamming Liability Through Misleading Sales and Verification
Seven complaints forming the basis of the NAL allege
that Vista telemarketers misrepresented material facts about
Vista's services to consumers who then relied on these
misrepresentations in changing their long distance carrier to
Vista. Vista maintains that it did not violate section 258 of
the Act or the Commission's rules with regard to these seven PIC
changes, and also challenges the allegations of five of those
complaints as lacking supporting evidence.7 Vista submitted
verification tapes for four of the seven allegedly authorized
sales.8 These verification tapes purportedly capture the
conversation made between the third party verifier and the
complainant immediately after the completion of the telemarketing
sale9 between the complainant and the Vista representative.10
These tapes are evidence, Vista claims, that the complainants
agreed to switch their long-distance service to Vista.11
Further, Vista rejects the evidence the Commission cited in the
NAL, consisting of consumer complaints and sworn declarations
made later in time than the tapes, as insufficient evidence to
dispute the content of the tapes and as ``wholly untested.''12
Vista argues that the taped conversations directly contradict the
declarations, and therefore Vista must be ``afforded an
opportunity to test the complainants' assertions through cross-
examination, or the forfeitures [for those] sales must be
For purposes of determining Vista's liability, it is
clear from the language of section 258, that we need only find
that (1) complainants did not authorize the change and (2) Vista
submitted PIC changes to the complainants' LECs.14 All seven of
the complainants sent consumer complaints to the Commission
stating that Vista had switched their PICs without their
authorization, and later confirmed these allegations in sworn
statements.15 In the complaints and statements, the consumers
describe with specificity the manner in which Vista
misrepresented its identity. For example, in three of the
complaints,16 the consumers consistently describe a telemarketing
call in which Vista falsely stated that it (Vista) was the
consumer's LEC and was offering a billing consolidation service,
not a long distance service. In addition, Vista concedes that it
submitted the PIC changes for the complainants.17
8. To counter the consumers' allegations that they had not
authorized a PIC change but were agreeing to a billing
consolidation service, Vista provided four tapes.18 These tapes
record the calls between the third party verifiers and the
consumers, in which the consumers allegedly verified their
authorization of Vista as their preferred carrier. We have
closely reviewed the tapes Vista submitted for Porter and
Associates, Inc., JRT & Associates, Sterling Travel and Leasco,
Inc. In these tapes, the verifiers ask the consumers if they
agree to switch their long distance service to Vista. After an
affirmative answer, the verifier asks if the consumers understand
that Vista is not affiliated with their local carrier, to which
they all responded affirmatively. The quality of the recordings
is good, demonstrating that the verifiers speak in a clear,
deliberate and easily understood manner. Based on the specific
facts of this case, we accept Vista's argument that the
recordings indicate that the consumers should have understood
that they had authorized Vista to become their long distance
carrier and that Vista was not associated with the consumers'
LEC. Accordingly, we reduce the amount of the forfeiture by
$80,000 for each of these four complaints, or $320,000. In so
doing, we emphasize that tapes of verification calls will not
always exonerate the entity alleged to be slamming consumers. If
a carrier has engaged in a pattern of misrepresenting its
identity and/or service offering, a subsequent recording of a
``verification'' may not overcome the fact that the consumer did
not first authorize the service. Liability must be determined on
the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Because
Vista does not submit a tape or any other substantive,
exonerating documentation for the other three complaints, we
find, on the basis of the evidence cited in the NAL, that those
complainants did not authorize Vista to change their PICs.19
9. With respect to two of these PIC changes, Vista argues
that it is not liable for the conduct of the contractors it used,
including the telemarketing firms and the third party verifiers
soliciting and verifying PIC-change requests on Vista's behalf.
In this respect, we direct Vista to section 217 of the Act,20 and
the numerous instances in which the Commission has stated that
carriers are responsible for the conduct of third parties acting
on the carrier's behalf, including third party marketers.21 Vista
is not relieved of liability for the two complaints at issue
merely because it may have directed the entities to secure
consumer authorizations in accordance with the law. Section 217
of the Act deems ``the act, omission or failure of any . . .
person acting for or employed by'' any carrier to be the act,
omission or failure of that carrier.22 This language clearly
extends to the entities ``acting for'' Vista in securing PIC-
change authorizations. Identical language in another federal
statute has been construed to impose criminal liability upon an
employer for the acts of its independent contractor.23 To hold
that section 258 and our slamming rules do not include
independent contractors would create a gaping loophole in the
requirements of the Act and frustrate legislative intent.
Moreover, Vista's interpretation is contrary to long-established
principles of common law holding statutory duties to be
10. Also, we reject Vista's claim that it did not act
willfully because of the precautions it purportedly took to
prevent the telemarketers' unscrupulous actions. Neither Vista's
alleged lack of knowledge or suspicions regarding its
telemarketers' conduct nor the fact that Vista may have taken
steps to prevent fraudulent schemes,25 exonerates the company.
It has long been established that the word ``willfully,'' as
employed in section 503(b) of the Act, does not require a
demonstration that Vista knew that it was acting unlawfully.26
Section 503(b) requires only a finding that Vista knew it was
doing the acts in question and that the acts were not
accidental.27 Furthermore, the language of section 258 imposes a
strict liability standard on the carrier responsible for
submitting an unauthorized change, regardless of intent.
11. Vista next argues that the Commission does not have
jurisdiction, under section 201 of the Act or the Commission's
rules, to regulate carriers' marketing devices and sales
strategies.28 In the NAL, we found not only that Vista was
apparently liable for changing consumers' PICs without
authorization, but also that Vista was apparently liable for
violations of section 201(b) of the Act, which prohibits ``unjust
and unreasonable'' practices by carriers ``in connection with''
communication service.29 Although we specifically declined to
propose a forfeiture based on the apparent violation of section
201(b), Vista challenges this finding of apparent liability on
jurisdictional grounds. We reject Vista's argument. Under
circumstances very similar to those involved here, this
Commission recently reiterated that it possessed jurisdiction
under section 201(b) for deceptive telemarketing practices by
long distance carriers.30 The telemarketing practices at issue
in the prior action included the carrier representing to
consumers that it was affiliated with the consumers' existing
interexchange carriers, and was offering a bill consolidation
service, then proceeding to switch the customers' PIC. Given
this precedent, and the similarity between the conduct at issue
in the two actions, we have no difficulty rejecting Vista's
B. Liability of the Remaining Eleven Complaints
12. Finally, in the NAL, we found Vista apparently liable
for slamming 11 consumers whose accounts it purchased from ATS.
Vista concedes that it did not properly verify the changes before
it switched those consumers' PICs to Vista.31 According to
Vista, ATS represented that it "had lawfully acquired the
customer accounts it sold to Vista."32 Therefore, Vista argues,
having purchased those "lawfully acquired customer accounts," it
had authority to submit PIC-change requests switching the
consumers to its long distance service. According to Vista, to
the extent ATS had not properly verified the consumers'
authorization to switch their PICs to ATS, ATS is guilty of
slamming and Vista is the victim of ATS's misconduct.33 Vista
contends that the Commission must conduct a full hearing to
determine if ATS lawfully acquired its customers before being
able to determine if the consumers were indeed slammed. If so,
Vista contends that the Commission must hold ATS accountable for
13. Vista's arguments misconstrue the NAL, the Act and the
Commission's rules and orders. Under section 258 of the Act and
the Commission's rules and orders, no carrier can submit a
carrier change request without first verifying that request
pursuant to the Commission's rules. Vista does not contend that
ATS was an agent soliciting consumers to switch to Vista's
service on Vista's behalf. Rather, Vista acknowledges that it
purchased consumer accounts from ATS and subsequently submitted
PIC-change requests on behalf of those consumers to change their
service to Vista. Regardless of whether or not ATS had properly
effected a switch to ATS' service, Vista had the statutory
obligation to submit PIC changes to its own service only after
obtaining authorization from the consumer and verifying that
authorization in accordance with the Commission's rules.
14. We also reject Vista's argument that it should be
relieved of its statutory duty to submit verified PIC-change
requests because the transfer of customer accounts from one
carrier to another without verifying the consumer's authorization
is "commonplace in the industry." If carriers have purchased
consumer accounts and switched the customers' PICs without
authorization and verification, they have done so in violation of
section 258 and the Commission's rules and orders. Vista cites
no authority to the contrary. Vista also contends that the
Commission did not require waivers of its verification rules in
the situation where carriers acquired the customer base of
another carrier prior to issuance of the Second Report and
Order.35 In that respect, we are puzzled by Vista's contention.
The Second Report and Order did not add the waiver requirement;
in fact, there is nothing in the Second Report and Order
suggesting that prior to its issuance carriers were not required
to obtain a consumer's authorization and verification before
submitting a PIC-change request. The fact that the Commission
first granted a waiver36 of its authorization and verification
requirements after the Second Report and Order does not undercut
any of the Commission's prior requirements. Furthermore,
slamming waiver requests are scrutinized to determine if
approving them would be in the public interest and have only been
granted when carriers have agreed to notify consumers of the
impending service change and the consumers' right to choose
another carrier if the consumers so decide.37 Here, Vista
satisfied none of those requirements.
C. Amount of the Forfeiture
15. Vista also argues that if the Commission determines
that a forfeiture should be imposed, ``a forfeiture penalty of
the magnitude the Notice seeks to assess on Vista would seriously
jeopardize Vista's ability to remain in business. . .''38 We
reject this argument. We have consistently held that a carrier's
gross revenues are the best indicators of its ability to pay a
forfeiture,39 and that gross revenues and current financial
status can be shown in an SEC Form 10-Q, or in an audited or
otherwise authenticated income statement of the company. 40
Vista has not provided any such probative evidence of its actual
gross revenues, or its current financial status.41 We therefore
determine that Vista also has not met its burden of proof on this
16. Although Vista further maintains that it took
precautions concerning its efforts to address its unauthorized
carrier changes, and that it stopped its telemarketing services
in November 1998,42 we find nothing to mitigate the amount of its
forfeiture. We believe that the precautions that Vista claims to
have taken, such as requiring approved scripts, on-site visits,
trouble codes, and internal safeguards, were not unusual in the
industry. Moreover, Vista's cessation of telemarketing
activities in November 1998 came months after the Consumer
Protection Branch of the Common Carrier Bureau had forwarded
hundreds of informal consumer complaints to Vista for its
17. After reviewing the information filed by Vista in its
Response, we find that Vista has failed to identify facts or
circumstances to persuade us that we should rescind the Vista
NAL. With respect to four of the PIC changes at issue, Vista has
presented evidence, which persuades us not to issue any
forfeiture for those alleged violations. Thus, we reduce the
proposed $1,000,000 forfeiture penalty to $680,000. We note that
evidence of further slamming violations could result in
additional enforcement proceedings against Vista.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b)
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(4), that Vista Services
Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum
of six hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($680,000) for
violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 258, and the
Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange
carrier conversions, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150. Payment
shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules within 30 days from the release of this
order.43 If the forfeiture is not paid within the period
specified, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice
for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of
Forfeiture shall be sent by certified United States mail to
Philip A. Bethune, President, Vista Services Corporation, 821
West Pointe Parkway, Suite 920, Westlake, Ohio 44145.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas
Secretary SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH
Re: Vista Services Corporation, Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, File No. ENF 99-10.
I concur in today's decision to impose a significant
forfeiture against Vista Services Corporation based on their
violations of our slamming rules. Although not relevant to the
merits of the forfeiture, the Order does contain dicta asserting
jurisdiction over deceptive advertising practices by long
distance carriers.44 I write separately to note my continued
concern with the Commission's excursions into advertising
1 Section 258 states that ``no telecommunications carrier
shall submit . . . a change in a subscriber's selection of a
provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service
except in accordance with such verification procedures as the
Commission shall prescribe.'' 47 U.S.C. § 258. In the Notice of
Apparent Liability that preceded this Order, we also found that
Vista apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act for its
unreasonable marketing practices, but declined to assess a
forfeiture for those apparent violations.
2 Vista Services Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 13814 (1999) (Vista NAL).
3 Vista NAL, 14 FCC Rcd at 13830. The Commission has
authority pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
§ 503(b), to assess a forfeiture penalty against a common carrier
if the Commission determines that the carrier has ``willfully or
repeatedly'' failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or
with any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission.
4 47 U.S.C. § 258.
5 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150; Implementation of the
Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and Rules Concerning
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, First
Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 94-129, FCC 00-135 (rel.
May 3, 2000) (Section 258 Reconsideration Order); Implementation
of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and Rules Concerning
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, Second
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14
FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (Section 258 Order), stayed in nonrelevant
part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999),
stay dissolved, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June
27, 2000); Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum
Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 10674 (1997);
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers'
Long Distance Carriers, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995) (LOA Order),
stayed in part, 11 FCC Rcd 856 (1995) (In-Bound Stay Order);
Policies and Rules concerning Changing Long Distance Carriers, 7
FCC Rcd 1038 (1992) (PIC Change Order), recon. denied, 8 FCC Rcd
3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and Divestiture-Related
Tariffs, 101 FCC Rcd 911 (1985) (Allocation Order), recon.
denied, 102 FCC2d 503 (1985); Investigation of Access and
Divestiture-Related Tariffs, 101 FCC 2d 935 (Com.Car.Bur. 1985)
(Waiver Order), recon. denied, 102 FCC 2d 503 (1985)
6 The Commission's rules and orders require that interexchange
carriers such as Vista submit authorized and verified PIC-change
orders to local exchange carriers, which are then obligated to
make the PIC-change absent some indication that the request is
not legitimate, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995) See LOA Order, 10 FCC Rcd
9560; PIC-Change Order, 7 FCC Rcd 1038; Allocation Order, 101 FCC
2d 911; Waiver Order, 101 FCC 2d 935.
7 The five complaints Vista challenges are: CUM Save N' Share,
Porter and Associates, Inc., JRT & Associates, Sterling Travel
and Leasco, Inc. All eighteen complaints were listed in an
attachment to the original Vista NAL.
8 Vista claims that it can verify five of the seven
complaints, but it only submits four verification tapes. For
the fifth, CUM Save N' Share, Vista found only a tape number, and
other information that it claims the contractor could not have
provided unless a verification had been conducted. Response at
17 - 18.
9 Vista admits that it was not privy to the conversations the
complainants had with the telemarketers, and admits that no tapes
exist of those conversations. Response at 20.
10 In the Vista NAL, the Commission profiled three of the seven
complaints alleging misrepresentation -- Sterling Travel, Porter
& Associates, and Magann Corporation. The NAL also profiled the
Import Camera Service complaint which involved Vista's purchase
of accounts from ATS. Vista submitted verification tapes for two
of the profiled complaints, Sterling Travel and Porter &
Associates, and tapes for two more of the complaints alleging
misrepresentation, Leasco Properties, Inc. and JRT and
11 Response at 16 - 17.
12 Id. at 19.
13 Id. at 21.
14 See 47 U.S.C. § 258; Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1539.
The Section 258 Order reiterates that the statutory language does
not establish an intent element for a violation of section 258.
A carrier, therefore, would be liable for slamming if it was
responsible for an unauthorized change, regardless of whether it
was done intentionally.
15 Vista NAL, 14 FCC Rcd at 13824.
16 The three complaints are from Porter and Associates, Inc.,
Sterling Travel, and CUM Save N' Share.
17 Response at 16.
18 Vista submitted these tapes with its Response.
19 For a fifth complainant, CUM Save N' Share, Vista reports
that it could not find a tape, but found only a tape number, and
other information that it claims the contractor could not have
provided unless a verification had been conducted. Vista,
however, did not submit this information. Response at 17 - 18.
20 Section 217 deems the acts or omissions of an agent or other
person acting for a common carrier to be the acts or omissions of
the carrier itself. 47 U.S.C. § 217.
21 The Commission has repeatedly held that the failure of a
third party marketer to obtain proper authorization for a PIC-
change does not relieve the carrier of its independent obligation
to ensure compliance with Commission rules. See, Long Distance
Direct, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3297 (2000); Amer-
I-Net Services Corporation, Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118
(2000); Target Telecom, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd
4456 (Com.Car.Bur. 1998) (Target Telecom Forfeiture Order); and,
Excel Telecommunications, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 11 FCC Rcd
19765 (Com.Car.Bur. 1997).
22 47 U.S.C. § 217 (emphasis added).
23 United States of America v. Corbin Farm Service, 444 F.
Supp. 510, 525 ( E.D. Cal.), aff'd on other grounds, 578 F.2d 259
(9th Cir. 1978). In that case, the court was charged with the
construction of section 1361(b)(4) of the Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
24 Employers are routinely held liable for breach of statutory
duties, even where the failings are those of an independent
contractor, and even where the party seeking redress is other
than the government. See Restatement [Second] of Torts § 409,
comment b at 371. See also, e.g., Alva Steamship Co., Ltd. v.
City of New York, 616 F.2d 605, 609 (2d Cir. 1980) (exception to
the rule of nonliability for the negligence of independent
contractor is ``the negligence of an independent contractor who
performs a duty imposed by statute on the employer").
25 Response at 32 - 36.
26 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
27 ConQuest Operator Services Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 14
FCC Rcd 12518, 12525, n.41 (1999); Target Telecom Forfeiture
Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 4458, Southern California Broadcasting Co.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 (1991).
28 Response at 23 - 28.
29 47 U.S.C. § 201(b).
30 Business Discount Plan, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC
Rcd 14461 (2000), petition for recon. pending. See also Joint
FCC/FTC Policy Statement for the Advertising of Dial-Around and
Other Long Distance Services to Consumers, 15 FCC Rcd 8654
(2000); AT&T, 71 RR2d 775 (1992); Telecommunications Research and
Action Center and Consumer Action v. Central Corp., 4 FCC Rcd
2157 (Com. Car. Bur. 1989).
31 Response at 40 - 41.
32 Id. at 41.
33 Id. at 38 - 43.
34 Id. at 43.
35 Id. at n. 142.
36 See Equal Net Corporation Request for Waiver, 14 FCC Rcd
3975 (Com. Car. Bur.1999).
38 Id. at 50.
39 See, e.g., Target Telecom Forfeiture Order, 13 FCC Rcd at
4464 (``the use of gross revenues to determine a party's ability
to pay is reasonable, appropriate, and a useful yardstick in
helping to analyze a company's financial condition for forfeiture
40 Long Distance Direct, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15
FCC Rcd at 3305-06.
41 Vista submitted general financial information only
concerning its net losses and decline in revenues.
42 Response at 46 - 48.
43 The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.
Reference should be made on Vista Services Corporation's check or
money order to ``NAL/Acct. No. 916EF0005.'' Such remittance must
be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago,
44 ¶ 11.
45 See Separate Statements Of Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-
Roth in: Business Discount Plan, FCC 00-239 (rel. July 17, 2000),
petition for recon. pending; Joint FCC/FTC Policy Statement for
the Advertising of Dial-Around and Other Long Distance Services
to Consumers, 15 FCC Rcd 8654 (2000). See generally, Harold
Furchtgott-Roth and Bryan Tramont, Commission on the Verge of a
Jurisdictional Breakdown: The FCC and its Quest to Regulate
Advertising, 8 Comm. Law Conspectus 219 (Winter 2000)**