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 )
)
One Call Communications, Inc. )
d/b/a Opticom ) File No. EB-02-TC-003
) NAL/Acct. No. 200232170005
) FRN: 0003772910
Operator Service Provider )
Requirements
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: August 21, 2003
Released: August 22, 2003
By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement
Bureau:
1. On September 23, 2002, the Commission released a Notice
of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') against One Call Communications,
Inc., d/b/a Opticom regarding apparent non-compliance with
Sections 226(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. § 226(b) (``the Act'') and Sections 64.703 et seq. of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.703(a), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4).1 On
October 23, 2003, One Call Internet, Inc. (``OCI'') formerly
known as One Call Communications, Inc. filed a Response and
Motion to Dismiss the Notice of Apparent Liability.2 On October
30, 2003, OCMC, Inc. (d/b/a ``One Call Communications, Inc.''
hereinafter ``OCMC'') also filed a response to the NAL.
2. The NAL alleges violations of the Act and the
Commission's rules involving calls dialed in May and June of 2002
to twenty-six (26) specific toll-free access codes. The NAL
tentatively concludes that a forfeiture is warranted for apparent
violations of the requirements which govern operator service
providers, in particular, branding and failure to give rate
disclosures to consumers.
3. OCI states in its Response that, on January 31, 2002,
it entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with OCMC, whereby
OCI agreed to transfer to OCMC all of the assets used in OCI's
telecommunications business, subject to the receipt of all
necessary regulatory approvals. Thereafter, OCI states that OCMC
provided management services to OCI in order to ensure continued
service to existing OCI telecommunications customers pending
regulatory approvals. An application to assign OCI's
international Section 214 authorization and to transfer control
of OCI's domestic 214 authorization was filed on July 24, 2002.3
On August 5, 2003 respondents OCI and OCMC submitted a Joint
Stipulation stating that both parties agree that OCI has not
served, nor does it currently serve, any of the toll-free access
codes cited in the NAL.4
4. The record, supplemented by the Joint Stipulation,
indicates that OCI did not serve the toll-free access codes cited
in the NAL at any time during the Investigation. Accordingly, to
the extent OCI entered an appearance, it should be dismissed from
this proceeding.
5. This Order has no impact on our proposal to assess a
forfeiture against OCMC, Inc., the entity currently doing
business as ``One Call Communications, Inc.,'' ``Opticom,'' and
``One Call.'' The Commission will address the NAL as it relates
to OCMC, Inc. in a separate order. Nothing herein constitutes a
decision with respect to OCMC, Inc.
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1,
4(i), 4(j), and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503(b),5 and
Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,6 and authority
delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311,7 that the Motion to Dismiss the Notice
of Apparent Liability with regard to One Call Internet, Inc. IS
GRANTED.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall
be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel
for One Call Internet, Inc., Steven A. Augustino, Esq., Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP , 1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 500,
Washington, D.C. 20036.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Colleen K. Heitkamp
Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 See One Call Communications, Inc. d/b/a/ Opticom, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 18646 (2002).
2 Response and Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-02-TC-003, filed
by One Call Internet, Inc., (October 23, 2002) (``Response'').
3See One Call Communications, Inc. and OCMC, Inc. Application to
Assign International Section 214 Authorizations and to Transfer
Control of Domestic Section 214 Authorization, ITC-ASG-20020724-
00410 (assignment of international authorization granted
September 11, 2002, DA No. 02-2234). Approval of the transfer of
control of the domestic Section 214 authorization is pending.
4 See letter from Steven A. Augustino, Counsel to One Call
Internet, Inc. to Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, August 5, 2003 (``Joint Stipulation'').
5 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503(b).
6 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(4).
7 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311.