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 ) File No. EB-07-SE-310
Cardinal Broadband LLC, ) NAL/Acct. No.
aka Sovereign Telecommunications, 200832100070
)
a wholly owned subsidiary of Cardinal FRN No. 0018035063
Communications, Inc. )
)
Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture AND ORDER
Adopted: August 15, 2008 Released: August 15, 2008
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL"),
we find Cardinal Broadband, LLC, aka Sovereign Telecommunications, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Cardinal Communications, Inc. (hereinafter,
"Cardinal"), apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful and repeated
violation of Section 9.5(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") by
failing to provide fully compliant E911 service.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On July 13, 2007, the Commission received a complaint alleging that
Cardinal, an interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP")
service provider, was not providing E911 service in a condominium
complex called Millstone in Golden, Colorado. Specifically, the
complaint alleged that "no one in the complex can call 911 and get our
local police department." The complaint further alleged that the local
police department had visited the condominium complex to confirm the
situation and had provided residents a flyer advising them that they
did not have 911 service and that they should call the police
department's regular number in case of emergency. This complaint was
subsequently referred to the Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement
Division ("Division") for investigation. During a follow-up phone call
on August 24, 2007, the complainant informed Division staff that he
and his neighbors had had a form of E911 service for approximately two
weeks. The complainant indicated that the 911 calls now went to a
third party, which would forward the call and the 911 caller's address
to the appropriate emergency personnel. The complainant also asserted
that conventional landline telephone service was not available at
Millstone because an affiliate company of Cardinal constructed the
condominium complex and did not permit it to be wired for conventional
landline service.
3. On September 10, 2007, the Division issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI")
to Cardinal directing it to provide certain information concerning its
provision of interconnected VoIP service. In its response, Cardinal
admitted that it "resells" telephone service but claimed that it does
not provide an "interconnected VoIP service." Specifically, Cardinal
argued that "the service Cardinal resells does not require `a
broadband connection from the user's location' ... [or] ... `internet
protocol-compatible customer premises equipment ["CPE"]'" and, thus
does not meet two of the four criteria for interconnected VoIP
service. Relying on its claim that the service it provided was not
interconnected VoIP service, Cardinal did not respond to the remainder
of the LOI.
4. During internet research on the website of Cardinal's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Broadband, the Division found marketing materials that
included the following statement: "Our state-of-the-art phone service
transports voice data using both regular phone lines and the Internet.
Getting connected to our broadband network is easy. You simply connect
your telephone to your Digital Telephone adaptor and use your phone
service like you do today."
5. On November 20, 2007, the Division directed a follow-up LOI to
Cardinal, attaching the marketing materials found on the Broadband
website. In a preliminary e-mail response, Cardinal stated that:
In my initial response I relied on the information provided to me verbally
by the employees of our subsidiary, Cardinal Broadband. Somewhere we had a
communication break down because I agree with you that anywhere a customer
must use an internet adapter to have telephone service would definitely
qualify as Interconnected VoIP.
6. In its response to the follow-up LOI, Cardinal states that, through
its wholly-owned subsidiary, Broadband, it resells the interconnected
VoIP services of Prime Time Communications ("Prime Time") and Simple
Signal at seven condominium buildings and communities in Colorado.
Cardinal asserts that since it is only a reseller, it is not an
interconnected VoIP service provider within the meaning of the
Commission's rules. Cardinal also claims that it is not an
interconnected VoIP service provider within the meaning of the
Commission's rules because it resells Qwest analog telephone service
at all of the locations at which it provides interconnected VoIP
service, and the Qwest analog telephone service does not "require a
broadband connection from the user's location" or "require internet
protocol-compatible customer premises equipment." Cardinal
acknowledges, however, that at five of the locations where it provides
interconnected VoIP service, there are "centrally positioned Internet
Access Devices" ("IADs"). Customers that request VoIP service at these
five locations are connected to IADs that are connected via T1s to
Prime Time's or Simple Signal's Broadsoft Server, which directs the
VoIP traffic to the Public Switched Telephone Network ("PSTN").
Cardinal indicates that if a customer requests VoIP service at the
remaining two locations, CPE -- specifically, a plug-in adapter -- is
required in the customer's unit. At these locations, the plug-in
adapter directs traffic that is routed to either Prime Time's or
Simple Signal's Broadsoft Server.
7. In addition, Cardinal admits that, from March 2007 until at least
August 15, 2007, it sold interconnected VoIP service at the Millstone
condominium community in Golden, Colorado that did not include fully
compliant E911 service. Specifically, Cardinal states that in March
2007 it was reselling VoIP service provided by Prime Time at that
location and that "[t]here was an error in giving Prime Time
Communications the registered locations of the new Millstone
customers." Cardinal states that once it learned of the problem, it
tried to work through the issues with Prime Time from March 2007 until
July 2007, but in July 2007 decided to switch providers to Simple
Signal. Cardinal indicates that Simple Signal began servicing the
customers at Millstone on August 15, 2007, and that all of the
Millstone VoIP customers were provided "e911 compliant service by or
before October 23, 2007." Cardinal asserts that it provided fully
compliant E911 service at all other locations where it provided
interconnected VoIP service as of the date it began offering
interconnected VoIP service at those locations. Finally, Cardinal
asserts that other communications providers are permitted to install
their own wiring at the properties where Cardinal provides
interconnected VoIP service.
III. Discussion
A. Cardinal Apparently Violated the Requirement That Interconnected VoIP
Service Providers Provide E911 Service
8. Section 9.5(b)(1) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that
"[i]nterconnected VoIP service providers must, as a condition of
providing service to a consumer, provide that consumer with E911
service as described in this section." Cardinal admits that, from
March 2007 until at least August 15, 2007, the interconnected VoIP
service provided at the Millstone condominium community in Golden,
Colorado, did not include fully compliant 911 service. Cardinal,
however, claims that it is not subject to Section 9.5(b).
Specifically, Cardinal argues that it is not an "interconnected VoIP
service provider" as the term is used in Section 9.5 of the Rules,
because it only "resells" interconnected VoIP service provided by
others.
9. Initially, it is not clear from Cardinal's response that it is a
"reseller" rather than a primary provider of interconnected VoIP
service. Cardinal apparently provides the broadband connectivity
itself and, in at least some cases, the customer's CPE, while
partnering with others to provide access to the PSTN and perhaps some
of the VoIP functionality. We do not need to decide this issue,
however, because even assuming that Cardinal only resells
interconnected VoIP service, it is nevertheless subject to the
requirements in section 9.5 of the Commission's rules as a provider of
interconnected VoIP services. In the VoIP 911 Order, the Commission
adopted "an immediate E911 requirement that applies to all
interconnected VoIP services." Specifically, the Commission required
"all" providers of interconnected VoIP service to incorporate E911
service into "all" interconnected VoIP service offerings. The
Commission made no distinction between providers who own and operate
their own facilities, services, or networks, and those who outsource
some or all of those functions to others. To the contrary, one of the
Commission's principal concerns in adopting this requirement was the
expectation of customers that interconnected VoIP service would
include E911 capabilities -- an expectation that applies regardless of
whether the service is provided directly or through resale.
10. Additional precedent also supports a finding that Cardinal is a
provider of interconnected VoIP service subject to our VoIP E911
rules. In extending universal service contribution obligations to
providers of interconnected VoIP service, the Commission relied on its
authority to require "[a]ny other provider of interstate
telecommunications" to contribute to universal service. The Commission
found that common definitions of the term "provide" suggest that it
should consider the meaning of "provide" from a supply side, i.e.,
from a provider's point of view. In this regard, it noted that Black's
Law Dictionary defines "provide" as "[t]o make, procure, or furnish
for future use, prepare. To supply; to afford; to contribute." In
fact, the Commission has compared some interconnected VoIP service
providers to other resellers of telecommunications. It concluded:
Just as the Commission has previously found resellers to be supplying
telecommunications to their customers even though they do not own or
operate the transmission facilities, ... we find interconnected VoIP
providers to be `providing' telecommunications regardless of whether they
own or operate their own transmission facilities or they obtain
transmission from third parties. In contrast to services that merely use
the PSTN to supply a finished product to end users, interconnected VoIP
supplies PSTN transmission itself to end users.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit subsequently affirmed the
Commission's interpretation of the statutory term "provide." Given this
broad interpretation of "provide," we find that so-called "resellers" of
interconnected VoIP services are interconnected VoIP service providers
subject to the E911 service requirements in Section 9.5 of our rules.
11. Finally, we reject Cardinal's argument that it is not an
interconnected VoIP service provider because it also sells Qwest
analog telephone service that does not "require a broadband connection
from the user's location" or "require internet protocol-compatible
customer premises equipment." Conventional analog telephone service
and interconnected VoIP service are distinct services. Cardinal's
status as an interconnected VoIP service provider is unaffected by the
fact that it also offers conventional analog telephone service.
12. Based on the above conclusions, we find that Cardinal is an
interconnected VoIP provider and that it willfully and repeatedly
apparently violated Section 9.5(b) of the Rules by failing to provide
compliant E911 service to the complainant.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
13. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any
rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In
exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "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."
14. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act bars the Commission from proposing a
forfeiture for violations that occurred more than a year prior to the
issuance of an NAL. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar the
Commission from assessing whether Cardinal's conduct prior to issuance
apparently violated the provisions of the Act and Rules and from
considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture
amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory
period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Cardinal's conduct
has continued over a period that began during March 2007, the
forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Cardinal's
apparent violations that have occurred within the past year.
15. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section
9.5(b) of the Rules. The Commission has, nevertheless, found that the
"omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing
base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission
considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The
Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation to know and
comply with all Commission's rules." Thus, the Commission retains its
discretion to issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, and has
assessed forfeiture liability, for rule violations irrespective of
whether corresponding base forfeiture amounts have been established.
16. Having considered the statutory factors and recent precedent, we find
that Cardinal's apparent willful and repeated failure to provide the
complainant with E911 service in compliance with Section 9.5(b) of the
Rules warrants a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $25,000. We note
that the Commission has found that violations of E911 requirements are
serious given the critical function these requirements serve in
promoting and safeguarding life and property. As the Commission has
stated, "E911 service saves lives and property by helping emergency
services personnel do their jobs more quickly and efficiently."
Moreover, the VoIP E911 requirements have been in place since November
2005. We also take into account the fact that the violation here
continued from March 2007 until at least August 15, 2007.
17. We recognize that the proposed $25,000 forfeiture is proportionally
higher than those proposed in recent wireless E911 cases. Those cases,
however, involved failures to provide either Phase I or Phase II
location information in response to valid PSAP requests. By contrast,
this case apparently involves a total failure to provide any 911
service. According to the complainant, local emergency officials
considered the situation so dire that they distributed flyers warning
of the lack of 911 service and directing residents to use the police
department's regular number in case of emergency. This is precisely
the type of situation the VoIP E911 rules were intended to avoid.
Given the critical importance of providing consumers -- including this
complainant -- the ability to call 911, we conclude that a
substantially higher proposed forfeiture is warranted here.
C. Other Obligations of Interconnected VoIP Service Providers.
18. As an interconnected VoIP service provider, Cardinal is also subject
to the Commission's other requirements pertaining to interconnected
VoIP. These include Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
("CALEA") obligations; Customer Proprietary Network Information
("CPNI") obligations; Telecommunications Relay Services ("TRS")
obligations; disability access obligations; local number portability
requirements ; and obligations to contribute to the universal
service, TRS, numbering administration, and local number portability
funds. Furthermore, Cardinal apparently has not filed a Form 499-A in
connection with its interconnected VoIP service. The Enforcement
Bureau intends to investigate Cardinal's compliance with these
requirements and may take further enforcement action, if warranted.
iV. ordering clauses
19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Cardinal
Broadband LLC IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE
in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for failing to
provide compliant E911 service in willful and repeated violation of
Section 9.5(b) of the Rules.
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cardinal submit a report within 10 days of
this NAL certifying that it is providing E911 service to all its VoIP
customers, in full compliance with the Commission's Rules. Cardinal's
report shall include: the total number of current customers served by
Cardinal; the number of customers it serves or served that did not
receive E911 service at any point since January 1, 2007; and a
detailed explanation of the manner in which Cardinal is fully
complying with the Commission's VoIP E911 Rules. Cardinal shall submit
the report to Thomas Fitz-Gibbon, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554. Cardinal shall also submit the
report electronically to Thomas.Fitz-Gibbon@fcc.gov.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, Cardinal SHALL PAY the full amount of the
proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
22. 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 Number referenced
above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under
an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer --
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at
1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
regarding payment procedures. Cardinal will also send electronic
notification on the date said payment is made to
Thomas.Fitz-Gibbon@fcc.gov and Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov.
23. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division,
and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
24. 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.
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
return receipt requested to Ronald S. Bass, Principal Accounting
Officer, Cardinal Communications, Inc., 11101 120th Avenue, Suite 220,
Broomfield, CO 80021.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kris Anne Monteith
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(b). In a companion decision issued concurrently with this
NAL, we propose a forfeiture of $25,000 against Cardinal for willfully
providing incorrect material factual information to the Commission without
a reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and
accurate in apparent violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules. Cardinal
Broadband LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability, DA 08-1921 (Enf. Bur., rel.
August 15, 2008).
An interconnected VoIP service is a service that: (1) enables real-time,
two-way voice communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the
user's location; (3) requires Internet Protocol-compatible customer
premises equipment; and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that
originate on the public switched telephone network ("PSTN") and to
terminate calls to the PSTN. See 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3; see also IP-Enabled
Services and E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, First
Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245,
10257-58, P: 24 (2005) ("VoIP 911 Order"), aff'd sub nom. Nuvio v. FCC,
473 F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Cardinal
Communications, Inc. (September 10, 2007) ("LOI").
Letter from Edward A. Garneau, Chief Executive Officer, Cardinal
Communications, Inc., and Ronald S. Bass, Principal Accounting Officer,
Cardinal Communications, Inc., to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, and Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (October
9, 2007) ("LOI Response") at 3.
Id. at 3 (emphasis in original).
Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Ronald S. Bass,
Principal Accounting Officer, Cardinal Communications, Inc. (November 20,
2007) ("Second LOI").
Electronic Mail Message from Ronald S. Bass, Principal Accounting Officer,
Cardinal Communications, Inc., to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq., Spectrum
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission (November 30, 2007).
Letter from Ronald S. Bass, Principal Accounting Officer, Cardinal
Communications, Inc., to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (January
7, 2008) ("Second LOI Response") at 3-7. Specifically, Cardinal indicates
that it provides interconnected VoIP service at the following condominium
buildings or communities: Mountain View/Pinnacle/WestFork Village in
Greeley, Colorado; Hunter's Chase in Parker, Colorado; Millstone in
Golden, Colorado; Prado in Denver, Colorado; Beauvallon in Denver,
Colorado; Wentworth Apartments in Aurora, Colorado; and Heritage
Crossing/Colony Ridge/Prospect in Thornton, Colorado. Id. at 3-6.
Id. at 3, 7.
Id. at 7.
Id. at 17-18.
Id. at 17.
Id. at 17-18.
Id. at 17.
Id. at 4, 11 and 21.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 3-6.
47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(b)(1); VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10266 P: 37. See
also 47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(a) (making the E911 service requirements "applicable
to providers of interconnected VoIP services").
See P: 4, supra
Many interconnected VoIP providers resell at least some portions of the
interconnected VoIP service they provide. For instance, interconnected
VoIP providers frequently resell the services of telecommunications
carriers to provide their interconnected VoIP customers with the
capability to terminate calls to, and receive calls from, the PSTN. See
Universal Service Contribution Methodology, Report and Order and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 7518, 7539-40 P: 41 (2006) ("Interim
Contribution Methodology Order"), aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub nom.
Vonage Holdings Corp. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("Vonage
Holdings"). See also Bright House Networks v. Verizon California,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10704 P: 3 (2008) (describing
relationship between interconnected VoIP service providers and wholesale
telecommunications carriers), petition for review filed sub nom. Verizon
California, Inc. v. FCC, No. 08-1234 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Time Warner Request
for Declaratory Ruling That Competitive Local Exchange Carriers May Obtain
Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
Amended, to Prove Wholesale Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers,
Memorandum Opinion and Order 22 FCC Rcd 3513 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2007).
VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10246 P: 2 (emphasis added).
Id. at 10256 P: 22.
Id. at 10248-49 P: 6.
47 U.S.C. S: 254(d) (emphasis added); Interim Contribution Methodology
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 7538-40 P:P: 38-42.
Id. at 7539 P: 40.
Id.
Id. at 7539 P: 41.
Id. at 7539-40 P: 41 (citing Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9179 P: 787 (1997)).
Vonage Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1240.
Second LOI Response at 7.
Section 312(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"),
47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures
are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
`willful', ... means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission
of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this
Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act
...." See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).
Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
`repeated,' ... means the commission or omission of such act more than
once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one
day." 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2). See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 P: 9 (2001);
Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 P: 5.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6).
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4); see also Behringer
USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1825 (2006),
forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1051 (2007); Globcom,
Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability, 18
FCC Rcd 19893, 19903 (2003), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC
Rcd 4710 (2006); Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15
FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-71 (2000); Cate Communications Corp., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting
Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC 2d 37 (1967), recon. denied,11
FCC 2d 193 (1967).
The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order,
12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), recon.
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 P: 22.
Id.
See, e.g., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 16414, 16417 P: 9 (2007) (proposing a $1,325,000
forfeiture irrespective of the absence of an established base forfeiture
for failure to comply with deadline for 95% location capable handset
penetration) ("Sprint Nextel") (forfeiture paid); A-O Broadcasting Corp.,
Forfeiture Order, 31 Communications Reg. (P&F) 411 P: 22 (2003), affirmed,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 756 (2005) (assessing a $28,000
forfeiture, inter alia, irrespective of the absence of an established base
forfeiture for violations of radio frequency exposure limits); Callais
Cablevision, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626, 22630 P:P: 19-20
(2002) (assessing an aggregate $133,000 forfeiture irrespective of the
absence of an established base forfeiture for violations of the cable
signal leakage standards); Midwest Television, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability, 20 FCC Rcd 3959 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (proposing a $20,000
forfeiture irrespective of the absence of an established base forfeiture
for failure to broadcast emergency information accessible to hearing
impaired viewers).
See e.g.. Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. and American Cellular Corporation,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4684, 4707 P: 61
(2006) (proposing a total $750,000 forfeiture against two commonly-owned
wireless carriers for failure to provide E911 Phase I service in response
to valid Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) requests in nine instances
and failure to provide E911 Phase II service in response to valid PSAP
requests in 41 instances) (subsequent history omitted); Lamar County
Cellular, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd
4375, 4378-4380 P:P: 14-18 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enforcement Division 2006)
(proposing a $12,000 forfeiture against a wireless carrier for failure to
provide E911 Phase I service in response to valid PSAP request)
(forfeiture paid).
See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Second Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20850, 20852 P: 2 (1999), clarified, 16 FCC Rcd 18982
(2001); see also Sprint Nextel, 22 FCC Rcd at 16418 P: 10; T-Mobile USA,
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 3501, 3504
P: 7 (2003) (forfeiture paid).
Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced
911 Emergency Calling Systems, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18679 P:5 (1996) (subsequent
history omitted).
See supra n. 42.
In the VoIP 911 Order, the Commission explained the difference between
Phase I and Phase II wireless E911 requirements: "The Commission's
wireless E911 requirements are comprised of two phases. Pursuant to the
Phase I rules, wireless carriers are required to provide a call back
number for the handset placing the 911 call and report the location of the
cell site or base station that provided the call.... Under the Phase II
rules, wireless carriers are required to provide more accurate 911 call
location information." VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10252 n.41.
"E911 systems route 911 calls through the use of a Selective Router to a
geographically appropriate PSAP based on the caller's location. E911 also
provides the call taker with the caller's call back number ... and in many
cases, location information...." Id. at 10251 P:13 (footnotes omitted).
See id. at 10246 n.2 (citing examples of VoIP customers futilely
attempting to call 911 during emergency situations).
See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.20000 - 1.20008.
See id. S:S: 64.2001 - 64.2009.
See id. S:S: 64.601 - 64.608.
See id. S:S: 6.1 - 6.23 and S:S: 7.1 - 7.23.
See id. S:S: 52.20 - 52.33
See id. S: 54.706.
See id. S: 64.604.
See id. S: 52.17.
See id. S: 52.32.
See id. S: 64.1195.
Id. S:S: 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.
(Continued from previous page)
(continued ...)
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920
9
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920