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

Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein

******************************************************** 
                      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-06-IH-0853  
     Premio, Inc.       )                           
                                                    
                        )                           
                                                    
                        )                           



                              NOTICE OF DEBARMENT

   Adopted: December 13, 2006  Released: January 22, 2007

   By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring and
   issuing separate statements.

   I. INtroduction

    1. In this Notice, we debar Premio, Inc. ("Premio") from all activities
       associated with the schools and libraries universal service support
       mechanism ("E-Rate program"). Premio pled guilty to and was convicted
       of two fraud-related felonies involving the E-Rate program. Based on
       the evidence in the record, we find Premio's conduct egregious and
       deny Premio's requests to reverse the suspension or halt the debarment
       proceeding. In light of several important factors, however, we limit
       the debarment period to one year from the effective date of this
       Notice. These factors include Premio's cooperation with the U.S.
       Department of Justice ("DOJ") investigation and prosecution of its
       wrongdoing, explained in the record of the debarment proceeding; the
       mitigating steps Premio has taken to remedy its past conduct and
       prevent future problems with its participation in the E-Rate program;
       and the fact that Premio states that it has voluntarily ceased to
       participate in the E-Rate program for more than five years already. In
       response to Premio's request, we also clarify that the debarment is
       restricted to participation in the E-Rate program and not to Premio's
       other activities, including the provision of equipment and services to
       schools and libraries outside of the E-Rate program. Finally, as
       discussed below, we also caution that in future debarment proceedings,
       we may decline to limit the debarment period.

   II. BackGRound

    2. The E-Rate program is one of several federal programs designed to
       promote and support the goal of universal service, i.e., making
       telecommunications available to all Americans. Each of these programs
       is funded by the Universal Service Fund ("USF"), which is administered
       by the Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC"). The
       resources for the E-Rate program in particular are designed to fulfill
       the principle expressed in section 254(b)(6) of the Communications Act
       of 1934 that "[e]lementary and secondary schools and classrooms, . . .
       and libraries should have access to advanced telecommunications
       services."

    3. As part of an effort to protect the resources of the E-Rate program
       from waste, fraud, and abuse, the Commission in 2003 adopted rules for
       suspending and debarring persons convicted of, or held civilly liable
       for, the commission or attempted commission of fraud and other similar
       offenses connected with the E-Rate program. The purpose of suspension
       and debarment is to prevent such persons from further participation in
       the E-Rate program for a certain period of time, and thereby protect
       the USF.

    4. Pursuant to our rules, the Commission "shall suspend and debar"
       persons convicted of, or held civilly liable for, certain
       fraud-related offenses involving the E-Rate program, "absent
       extraordinary circumstances." Such offenses include the "attempt or
       commission of criminal fraud, theft, embezzlement, forgery, bribery,
       falsification or destruction of records, making false statements,
       receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstruction of justice
       and other fraud or criminal offense arising out of activities
       associated with or related to the schools and libraries support
       mechanism." Upon learning that a person has been convicted of or found
       liable for one of these offenses, our rules contemplate that the
       Commission will immediately suspend the person from the E-Rate
       program, provide "prompt notice" to that effect, and initiate
       debarment proceedings. Thereafter, our rules provide the suspended
       person thirty days to contest suspension or the proposed debarment, or
       seek to limit its scope, but state that relief from suspension "will
       not ordinarily be granted." Once we have debarred a person, our rules
       state that the person will be prohibited from involvement with the
       E-Rate program for three years, although the rules contemplate that
       the Commission might modify the period in particular circumstances.

    5. Since the debarment rule became effective, there have been convictions
       of eight individuals and four corporations related to their
       participation in the E-Rate program. After each conviction following
       the enactment of the rule, the Commission initiated debarment
       proceedings against the perpetrators. The Commission has debarred the
       eight individuals and two corporations, and today resolves the
       debarment proceedings against two more corporations, Premio, Inc. in
       this Notice and NextiraOne, LLC in a separate order.

    6. Premio manufactures computers, software and peripheral equipment, and
       sells them to wholesale, commercial, and government entities. On
       February 22, 2006, Premio pled guilty to two felony offenses arising
       out of its activities in the E-Rate program. One offense involved a
       conspiracy in violation of the antitrust laws to suppress and
       eliminate competition in the E-rate bidding process, and the other
       involved mail fraud in seeking payment from USAC for ineligible
       services. In connection with the antitrust violation, Premio admitted
       that from late 1998 through late 1999, it conspired with one or more
       vendors of equipment and services related to telecommunications,
       Internet access and/or internal connections to suppress and eliminate
       competition for E-Rate projects in the West Fresno Elementary School
       District in California by allocating contracts and submitting
       fraudulent and non-competitive bids. In connection with the mail
       fraud, Premio admitted that from late 1998 through late 2000, it
       sought payment of more than $1.2 million in E-Rate funding in the
       Highland Park School District in Michigan for ineligible video
       conferencing equipment. For its misconduct, Premio agreed to pay
       $400,000 in criminal fines, and has paid in full $1.3 million in civil
       settlement that included full restitution to the USF. In addition,
       Premio has been placed on probation for three years. Premio's
       knowledge of and participation in these crimes was through the
       activities of an employee acting at all times within the course and
       scope of his employment, and for Premio's benefit.

    7. On February 28, 2006, consistent with the Commission's debarment rule,
       the Enforcement Bureau's Investigations and Hearings Division issued a
       Notice of Suspension and Proposed Debarment to Premio, which
       immediately suspended Premio from participating in the E-Rate program,
       and initiated debarment proceedings. In response to the notice, Premio
       submitted a Petition for Reversal of Suspension and Opposition to
       Proposed Debarment ("Petition"), which seeks to overturn Premio's
       suspension, and to avoid debarment. In the alternative, Premio
       requests that we limit the period of debarment and clarify the scope
       of debarment.

    8. On July 13, 2006, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
       filed a letter explaining Premio's cooperation throughout the
       government's investigation into Premio's E-Rate activities. In
       addition, Premio filed two letters in the proceeding, on July 27 and
       August 31, 2006, noting that it has not participated in the E-Rate
       program since July 2001.

   III. DISCUSSION

    9. We reject Premio's argument that extraordinary circumstances exist
       such that we shall reverse its suspension and terminate its debarment
       proceeding. Specifically, Premio maintains that "extraordinary
       circumstances" exist to justify reversal of suspension and avoidance
       of debarment because of the following factors: (1) a single employee
       committed the offenses at issue, and Premio has terminated that
       employee; (2) Premio has cooperated and continues to cooperate with
       governmental efforts to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in the
       E-Rate program; (3) Premio has committed to establishing a
       comprehensive compliance program to ensure future compliance with all
       laws governing its operations, including E-Rate rules and regulations;
       and (4) Premio has established business relationships with, and
       extensive expertise in the provision of equipment and services to, the
       schools and libraries that the E-Rate program is intended to support.
       Premio contends that the debarment rule expressly is not intended to
       be punitive, and application of the rule to Premio's case under these
       facts would not serve the underlying purposes of the rule.

   10. We do not find these circumstances are "extraordinary," pursuant to
       our rules, and therefore they do not justify reversal of the
       suspension or avoidance of debarment. Although a single employee
       committed the crimes that form the basis for the debarment, the fact
       remains that the E-Rate program was defrauded out of more than $1
       million and that Premio admits in its criminal plea that the employee
       was "acting at all times within the course and scope of his employment
       with Premio, and for Premio's benefit." Rather than extraordinary, we
       believe Premio's decision to terminate the employee under these
       circumstances should be the ordinary course of events. We likewise
       believe that Premio's cooperation with DOJ and establishment of a
       compliance plan are among the remedies a company should undertake once
       law enforcement has uncovered fraud within the enterprise. Indeed,
       Premio is required to cooperate with DOJ and implement a compliance
       plan as a result of its plea agreement with DOJ. Premio makes much of
       the fact that the compliance plan includes provisions governing its
       participation in the E-Rate program; Premio contends that the court
       and the DOJ therefore did not contemplate that it would be debarred,
       and that these provisions are sufficient to protect the program.
       Premio overlooks, however, that the settlement agreement of which the
       compliance plan is a part, expressly states that "any process or
       proceeding, administrative or judicial, for any agency suspension or
       debarment action" is excluded from the settlement terms. Moreover, in
       the Special Terms of Probation, the court explicitly states that it is
       not "in any way limiting the authority of any agency of the United
       States to take any action permitted by law or regulation."

   11. With respect to Premio's claim that debarring it will deprive E-Rate
       beneficiaries from receiving "high-quality hardware and expert
       support," we find no evidence that schools and libraries will be
       unable to find other providers to fill any gap left by Premio's
       debarment. Indeed, notwithstanding Premio's "longstanding
       relationships with, and extensive expertise in providing equipment and
       services to, the schools and libraries that the E-Rate program is
       intended to support," we note that no school or library filed anything
       in the record in support of Premio's Petition as expressly permitted
       by our rules. In short, we find no "extraordinary circumstances" to
       reverse the suspension the Enforcement Bureau imposed, or to avoid
       debarment. Accordingly, we debar Premio.

   12. Although Premio's actions do not constitute extraordinary
       circumstances necessary to reverse suspension and avoid debarment, we
       find several countervailing factors support limiting Premio's period
       of debarment. In our recent debarment actions against NEC Network
       Solutions, Inc. ("NEC") and Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc.
       ("Inter-Tel"), we relied on the following facts to reduce the
       debarment period to six months for NEC and one year for Inter-Tel: (1)
       DOJ submitted letters indicating that the corporations had cooperated
       with the government during its investigation, and that such
       cooperation was valuable in the detection and prosecution of E-Rate
       fraud; (2) the corporations accepted full responsibility for their
       actions by compensating the USF for their wrongdoing, and implemented
       extensive remedial measures to protect the fund in the future; and (3)
       the corporations had not participated in the E-Rate program for some
       length of time already. These facts exist in this case as well and, as
       discussed below, we limit Premio's debarment period to one year.

   13. First, DOJ submitted a letter to the Commission documenting Premio's
       cooperation with the investigation and prosecution of fraud and
       collusion associated with certain E-Rate projects. DOJ explained that
       Premio's plea was the third corporate plea in its investigation, and
       that the company cooperated by supplying information and documents and
       encouraging current or former employees to cooperate. DOJ stated that
       "Premio's cooperation has enabled us to define the extent of criminal
       behavior undertaken by its former employee as well as other defendants
       currently awaiting trial in this matter. Consequently, we consider the
       nature, speed, and extent of Premio's cooperation to have been very
       helpful in developing our investigation to date." DOJ noted that
       Premio would provide additional assistance in its investigation
       because the Plea Agreement "require[d] Premio to cooperate with the
       United States in investigating and prosecuting others involved in
       criminal violations at E-Rate fund projects" on a going-forward basis.

   14. Second, as DOJ pointed out in its letter, Premio also has accepted
       full responsibility for its past actions and implemented remedial
       measures to protect the universal service fund in the future. "Premio
       has provided full reimbursement to the Universal Service Fund of
       monies defrauded from the program by it and others it worked with at
       certain projects." In addition, Premio has terminated the one employee
       involved in the fraud that led to Premio's conviction, implemented a
       code of conduct, and "established an intensive, multi-year program of
       monitoring, training, and auditing of government procurement contracts
       at the company's expense to ensure that there are no recurrences of
       the behavior discussed in the Plea Agreement." More specifically, as
       part of its agreement with the government, Premio was required to
       adopt a Compliance Policy that: (1) created an internal structure
       requiring high level management oversight of all public sector
       business; (2) established an internal system of monitoring and audits,
       including steps to be taken if any employee suspects that any company
       conduct violates the compliance policy or applicable law; (3) educates
       and trains employees about their obligations and applicable law; (4)
       ensures that there are regular reports to the CEO and Board of
       Directors. In addition, Premio was required to appoint an officer as a
       Compliance Officer responsible for enforcement and oversight of the
       Compliance Policy, among other duties. Moreover, as part of the
       settlement terms with DOJ, Premio agreed that, if the company chose to
       participate in the E-Rate program at any time during the three years
       following the adoption of its settlement, its Compliance Officer must
       serve as the central point of contact for certain functions relating
       to E-Rate. Premio also agreed that for the three years following the
       settlement, if the company submitted any bids or applications for
       E-Rate funds, the Compliance Officer must take certain additional
       steps to ensure that all employees associated with that activity are
       properly educated and trained about program requirements. Of course,
       as a result of our debarment decision today, Premio cannot participate
       at all in the E-Rate program for one year, but these additional
       protections are part of its agreement with DOJ, and will be triggered
       if the company elects to participate after the Commission's debarment
       period has ended.

   15. Finally, in considering the debarment period, we note that Premio has
       been out of the E-Rate program for several years already. Premio
       claims it voluntarily stopped participating in the E-Rate program in
       July 2001, and has not participated since that time. USAC records
       confirmed that no payment has been made to Premio since July 1, 2001.

   16. Under these circumstances, where DOJ has recognized and valued the
       company's cooperation, the company has remedied fully its past conduct
       and implemented remedial measures designed to protect the USF in the
       future, and the company has not participated in the E-Rate program for
       more than five years, we limit Premio's debarment period to one year.
       This is the same debarment period we imposed in our recent Inter-Tel
       Debarment Notice.

   17. We decline to reduce the debarment period to six months as we did in
       the NEC Debarment Order. As we explained in prior debarment decisions,
       DOJ gave special weight to NEC's cooperation as the first cooperator
       in an antitrust conspiracy, which led to the discovery of additional
       misconduct that might not have been detected absent NEC's cooperation.
       We believe that the facts surrounding Premio's case do not warrant a
       similar reduction in debarment period.

   18. As part of our decision to limit the debarment periods of NEC and
       Inter-Tel, we imposed additional precautionary measures to protect the
       E-Rate program. Premio states that it is currently not participating
       in the E-Rate program. In the event that Premio re-enters the E-Rate
       program after its debarment period, but within three-years after the
       adoption of its agreement with DOJ (i.e., during the three years in
       which certain additional protections to its participation in the
       E-Rate program as a result of the DOJ settlement), we impose those
       same additional precautionary measures to protect the program. First,
       we order USAC to review with heightened scrutiny Premio's applications
       submitted during each of the first two funding years after re-entry.
       Second, we order USAC to conduct automatic annual audits regarding
       Premio's compliance with applicable laws and Commission rules
       governing the E-Rate program, for each of the first two funding
       periods upon Premio's re-entry.

   19. Finally, we grant Premio's request to clarify the scope of any
       debarment. Premio explains that while it is not currently
       participating in the E-Rate program, its clients do currently "include
       schools and libraries throughout the United States, some of which
       otherwise receive discounted goods and services through the E-Rate
       program, and entities that provide equipment or services independent
       of Premio to schools and libraries through the E-Rate program." Hence,
       Premio seeks clarification that debarment "does not suggest or imply
       that Premio is in any way prohibited from selling equipment and
       services to schools and libraries, or to other third party vendors,
       that participate in the E-Rate program, so long as payment for such
       equipment and service does not come from E-Rate funds." Provided that
       Premio does not engage in activities associated with or related to the
       E-Rate Program, including the receipt of funds or discounted services
       through the E-Rate program, or consulting with, assisting or advising
       applicants or service providers regarding the E-Rate program during
       the debarment period, Premio's request is consistent with our rules.
       We therefore clarify that Premio's debarment applies only to the
       E-rate program, such that nothing in this Notice affects Premio's
       ability to sell products and services to schools, libraries, or other
       vendors outside of the E-Rate program.

   20. We also strongly caution that future debarment proceedings may not
       result in similar limitations of the debarment period. This debarment
       action stems from Department of Justice investigations of fraudulent
       activities by E-rate participants for conduct occurring between 1998
       and 2002. In this proceeding, as well as in the NEC and Inter-Tel
       Debarment Orders, we relied on multiple mitigating factors in deciding
       to limit the respective debarment periods. In the case at hand, we
       find it especially compelling that Premio has voluntarily ceased to
       participate in the E-Rate program,  and has not participated in the
       program since 2001. Moreover, we emphasize that the similarities
       between the facts in the instant proceeding and the NEC and Inter-Tel
       debarment proceedings dictate that we debar the companies for
       substantially the same period of time. These similarities include the
       facts that all three carriers were involved in similar criminal
       violations over a similar period of time; they all used the same
       E-rate consulting service; and their acts of fraud affected many of
       the same school districts. In future debarment matters, however, we
       may impose stricter debarment sanctions in order to deter waste, fraud
       and abuse and protect the integrity of the E-rate program.

   IV. CONCLUSION

   21. Based on the foregoing and to protect the integrity of the E-Rate
       program, including the investments made by American consumers to
       benefit this nation's deserving school children, Premio, Inc.,
       including its successors and assigns, is hereby debarred from the
       E-Rate program for one year, effective upon the earlier of receipt of
       this Notice or its publication in the Federal Register. During the
       period in which Premio will serve its debarment, Premio, including its
       successors and assigns, is prohibited from all activities "associated
       with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism," or
       E-Rate program, including "the receipt of funds or discounted services
       through the schools and libraries support mechanism, or consulting
       with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding
       the schools and libraries support mechanism." We will continue to take
       appropriate actions in future cases as warranted by the particular
       circumstances to protect the integrity of the program including, as
       discussed above, declining to limit debarment periods where the facts
       or circumstance do not clearly warrant such a limitation.

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 54.521 of the
       Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 54.521, that Premio, Inc., including
       its successors and assigns, IS DEBARRED from the schools and libraries
       universal service support mechanism for one year, effective upon the
       earlier of receipt of this Notice of Debarment or publication in the
       Federal Register.

   23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event Premio, Inc. re-enters the
       E-Rate program during its three-year probation period, USAC shall
       review with heightened scrutiny Premio's applications submitted during
       the first two funding years upon its re-entry into the E-Rate program.

   24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event Premio, Inc. re-enters the
       E-Rate program during its three-year probation period, USAC shall
       conduct automatic annual audits on Premio's E-Rate activities during
       each of the first two funding years upon its re-entry into the E-Rate
       program.

   25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Enforcement Bureau staff shall send, by
       certified mail/return receipt requested, a copy of this Notice of
       Debarment to W. Kenneth Ferree, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton,
       LLP, 1300 I Street NW, 11^th Floor East, Washington, DC 20005.

   26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 54.521 of the Commission's
       rules, 47 C.F.R. S 54.521, that this Notice SHALL BE PUBLISHED in the
       Federal Register.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene Dortch

   Secretary

                            CONCURRING STATEMENT OF

                         COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

   Re: Premio, Inc., File No. EB-06-IH-0853

   The E-Rate program is an essential part of our national effort to ensure
   that all Americans can benefit from the information superhighway in the
   Digital Age. This is particularly true for those living in economically
   disadvantaged areas who otherwise would be left on the wrong side of the
   Digital Divide were it not for the success of the E-Rate program. There
   are many dedicated people in the Schools and Libraries Division, at the
   FCC and Justice Department, and elsewhere who are deserving of our praise
   for bringing the Internet to our schools and libraries and for ensuring
   that waste, fraud and abuse are removed from the program. Premio, Inc.'s
   conviction and today's 1-year debarment from the program are further
   evidence of their efforts. While there were mitigating circumstances in
   this case, I believe that activities of the kind that the company engaged
   in may very well merit a longer debarment period given the importance of
   the E-Rate program and the severity of the company's actions. I therefore
   concur in this Order.

                             SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

                       COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN

                                   CONCURRING

   Re: Premio, Inc, File No. EB-06-IH-0853

   Since its inception, the universal service support mechanism for schools
   and libraries (commonly referred to as the E-rate program) has opened up a
   new world of learning and opportunity for millions of school children and
   library patrons. To ensure the continued success of the E-Rate program, we
   must remain committed to monitoring, auditing, reviewing and reinforcing
   the program. A critical part of our Commission oversight is the use of
   debarment, which prohibits bad actors from participating in the program.
   Accordingly, I support our decision in this Order to debar Premio from all
   involvement in the E-Rate program.

   I concur in, rather than approve, this Order because I would have
   supported a longer debarment period. The Commission's rules provide for a
   debarment period of three years, which may be extended to protect the
   public interest or reduced upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances.
   I note that the Department of Justice has encouraged the Commission to
   exercise our debarment policy in a way that encourages early and complete
   cooperation from defendants, and I recognize that the Commission may take
   into account payment of fines and restitution, the length of time that a
   provider has not participated, and most importantly a high degree of
   cooperation with law enforcement. Even weighing these factors, the
   one-year debarment period adopted in this Order falls short, given the
   scope and seriousness of the fraud-related activities in this case.
   Schools do not have unlimited resources, and I am concerned about the
   effect that fraudulent activity like that perpetrated by Premio can have
   for the affected school systems and their students. In this case, a longer
   debarment period would have sent a stronger and clearer message that fraud
   will not be tolerated.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 54.521.

   47 U.S.C. S 254(b)(6).

   47 C.F.R. S 54.521; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support
   Mechanism,  Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
   Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202 (2003) ("Second Report and Order").

   Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, P 66.

   47 C.F.R. S 54.521(b). The rule defines a "person" as any individual,
   group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association, unit of
   government or legal entity, however organized. 47 C.F.R. S 54.521(a)(6).
   Opting for a stringent debarment rule, the Commission explicitly rejected
   a government-wide standard providing that an entity "may" be debarred
   based on a conviction or civil judgment. See Second Report and Order, 18
   FCC Rcd at 9227, P 74.

   47 C.F.R. S 54.521(c).

   47 C.F.R. S 54.521(e).

   47 C.F.R. S 54.521(e)(4).

   47 C.F.R. S 54.521(g) (lengthen or extend the period "if necessary to
   protect the public interest"); 47 C.F.R. S 54.521(f) (reverse or limit the
   period of suspension or debarment "upon a finding of extraordinary
   circumstances").

   Letter from Maureen F. Del Duca, Chief, Investigations and Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Oscar Alvarez, Connect2 Internet Network,
   Inc., DA 03-2706, Notice of Debarment, December 23, 2003; Letter from
   Maureen F. Del Duca, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, to John Angelides, Connect2 Internet Network, Inc., DA
   03-4088, Notice of Debarment, December 23, 2003; Letter from Maureen F.
   Del Duca, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau,
   to Duane Maynard, Howe Electric, Inc., DA 03-4089, Notice of Debarment,
   December 23, 2003; Letter from William H. Davenport, Chief, Investigations
   and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to John Dotson, DA 04-3828,
   Notice of Debarment, December 6, 2004; Letter from William H. Davenport,
   Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to John
   Henry Weaver, DA 05-1727, Notice of Debarment, June 23, 2005; Letter from
   William H. Davenport, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, to Haider Bokhari, DA 05-1730, Notice Debarment, June
   23, 2005; Letter from William H. Davenport, Chief, Investigations and
   Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Qasim Bokhari, DA 05-1728,
   Notice of Debarment, June 23, 2005; Letter from William H. Davenport,
   Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Ronald
   R. Morrett, DA 05-2349, Notice of Debarment, August 30, 2005.

   See NEC-Business Network Solutions, Inc., Notice of Debarment and Order
   Denying Waiver Petition, 21 FCC Rcd. 7491 (2006) ("NEC Debarment Order");
   Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc., Notice of Debarment, 21 FCC Rcd. 7506 (2006)
   ("Inter-Tel Debarment Notice").

   See Letter from William H. Davenport, Chief, Investigations and Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Tom Tsao, Vice President, Premio Inc., DA
   06-489, Notice of Suspension and of Proposed Debarment, February 28, 2006
   ("Premio Suspension Notice"), 71 Fed. Reg. 14527-29 (Mar. 22, 2006). Our
   rules contemplate that notice of debarment will be provided within 90 days
   of receipt of information submitted by the respondent in response to a
   suspension notice. 47 C.F.R. S 54.521(e)(5). Premio filed its Petition on
   March 27, 2006; 90 days thereafter was June 27, 2006. We may waive our own
   rules pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S 1.13 in the public interest. To allow the
   Commission to have a full opportunity to analyze this matter, we hereby
   waive the 90 day rule as it applies to Premio, Inc.'s responsive pleading,
   filed March 27, 2006.

   NextiraOne, LLC, Notice of Debarment and Order Denying Waiver Petition,
   FCC 06-126 (rel. Jan. 22, 2007).

   See Letter from W. Kenneth Ferree, Esq. and Erin L. Dozier, Esq., Sheppard
   Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, outside counsel for Premio, Inc., to Diana
   Lee, Esq. , Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau,
   Federal Communications Commission, dated March 27, 2006, attaching
   Petition for Reversal of Suspension and Opposition to Proposed Debarment
   at 2 ("Petition").

   U.S. v. Premio, Inc., Docket No. CR-06-0086 CRB, Plea Agreement, 5-7
   (N.D.Cal. filed February 22, 2006 and entered February 24, 2004) ("Premio
   Plea Agreement"); United States v. Premio, Inc., Criminal Docket No.
   CR-06-0086 CRB, Judgment (N.D.Cal. filed Feb. 22, 2006 and entered Feb.
   23, 2006) ("Premio Judgment").

   15 U.S.C. S 1, 18 U.S.C. SS 1341-1342. See Premio Judgment at 1.

   Premio Plea Agreement at 4-5.

   Premio Plea Agreement at 6.

   Premio Plea Agreement at 10.

   Premio Plea Agreement at 10; Id. at Exhibit B (requiring the
   implementation of a comprehensive Anti-Fraud and Antitrust Compliance
   Program for the three-year term of probation) ("Special Terms of
   Probation").

   Premio Plea Agreement at 4, 5.

   See Premio Suspension Notice; 71 Fed. Reg. 14527-29 (March 22, 2006).

   See generally Petition.

   See Petition at 12-13.

   Letter from Scott M. Watson, Chief, Great Lakes office, Antitrust
   Division, Department Of Justice, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
   Communications Commission (filed July 13, 2006) ("DOJ Letter"). The Plea
   Agreement obligates DOJ to make any administrative agency considering
   administrative action against Premio aware of Premio's cooperation upon
   request. Premio requested DOJ to provide this information in July 2006.

   Letter from W. Kenneth Ferree, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
   counsel for Premio, Inc., to Trent Harkrader, Eric Bash, and Diana Lee,
   Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission, dated July 26, 2006 ("July 26^th  Supplemental
   Letter"); Letter from W. Kenneth Ferree, Sheppard Mullin Richter and
   Hampton, LLP, counsel for Premio, Inc. to Trent Harkrader, Eric Bash, and
   Diana Lee, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau,
   Federal Communications Commission, dated August 31, 2006 ("August 31^st
   Letter").

   See Petition at 5.

   Id.

   Premio Plea Agreement at 4, 5.

   See id. at 11-13.

   See Petition at 7-8, 11-12.

   Id., Attachment A ("Premio Settlement Agreement") at 6.

   Special Terms of Probation at 2.

   Petition at 11.

   Id.

   47 C.F.R. SS 54.521(e)(3)-(e)(4).

   See DOJ Letter at 1.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id. at 2.

   Id. at 2.

   Special Terms of Probation at P 1.

   Id. at PP 2-13.

   Id. at P 2(e))

   Id. at P 10.

   Supplemental Letter at 2. To the extent that any E-Rate applications
   involving Premio were filed since July 2001, and remain pending at USAC,
   Premio has stated that it "disclaims any interest in, and it relinquishes
   any claim for reimbursement on, any such applications." See August 31^st
   Letter.

   NEC Debarment Order at PP 19-20; Inter-Tel Debarment Notice at P 28.

   See Petition at 12.

   Petition at 8-10.

   Id. at 12.

   These investigations examined the practices of NEC, Inter-Tel, Premio and
   NextiraOne and resulted in proceedings before the Commission. See supra
   notes 11 & 13.

   See supra at para. 1.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 54.521(e)(5).

   See 47 C.F.R. SS 54.521(a)(1), 54.521(a)(5), 54.521(d).

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                               (continued...)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-177

   8

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-177