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-08-TC-5961      
                                         )                               
     Voip Alliance, LLC                      NAL/Acct. No. 201032170898  
                                         )                               
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       FRN: 0015179807             
                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               


                              ORDER OF FORFEITURE

                                Adopted: June 9, 2011 Released: June 10, 2011

   By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION and background

    1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty
       thousand dollars ($20,000) against Voip Alliance, LLC ("Voip
       Alliance"). Voip Alliance has willfully or repeatedly violated section
       222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications
       Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the
       Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual
       compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for
       calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008.

    2. Voip Alliance is a prepaid calling card provider located in McAllen,
       Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Voip Alliance is subject to
       the requirements of section 222 of the Act and section 64.2009 of the
       Commission's rules. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all
       telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their
       subscribers' proprietary information. As part of that obligation,
       carriers that receive or obtain customer proprietary network
       information ("CPNI") through the provision of telecommunications
       services can only use, disclose, or allow access to that information
       in connection with or to provide such telecommunications services.

    3. The Commission adopted rules implementing section 222 of the Act.
       Section 64.2009 of these rules requires carriers to establish and
       maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protect
       their subscribers' CPNI. Prior to the EPIC CPNI Order, section
       64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules required telecommunications
       carriers such as Voip Alliance to maintain and make publicly available
       annual certifications of their CPNI compliance. The EPIC CPNI Order
       strengthened the CPNI rules by adding additional safeguards to protect
       CPNI against unauthorized access and disclosure, including an
       obligation that carriers subject to the CPNI rules file their annual
       certification with the Commission on or before March 1 of each year.
       Additionally, as part of their annual certification filing, carriers
       were required to provide "an explanation of any actions taken against
       data brokers and a summary of all customer complaints received in the
       past year concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI."

    4. On September 2, 2008, the Bureau sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to
       Voip Alliance requesting copies of its timely filed CPNI compliance
       certificate for 2007, which was due by March 1, 2008, or an
       explanation as to why no certification was filed. Voip Alliance
       responded to the LOI on September 17, 2008 stating that the company
       was unaware of the filing requirement. The Bureau concluded that Voip
       Alliance failed to submit satisfactory evidence of its timely filing
       of the annual CPNI compliance certification. On February 24, 2009, the
       Bureau released the Omnibus NAL against numerous companies, including
       Voip Alliance, proposing a monetary forfeiture of $20,000 for the
       apparent failure to comply with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's
       rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, and ordered Voip Alliance
       to either pay the proposed forfeiture or file a written response
       within 30 days of the release date stating why the proposed forfeiture
       should be reduced or canceled. Voip Alliance did not submit a response
       to the Omnibus NAL.

   II. discussion

    5. Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules requires
       telecommunications carriers such as Voip Alliance to file annually
       before March 1st a CPNI compliance certification signed by an officer
       of the carrier. By its own admission, Voip Alliance failed to comply
       with this Commission rule for calendar year 2007 and is subject to
       forfeiture. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act authorizes the
       Commission to assess a forfeiture against a common carrier of up to
       $150,000 for each violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or
       order issued by the Commission under the Act. The Commission may
       assess this penalty if it determines that the carrier's noncompliance
       is "willful or repeated." For a violation to be willful, it need not
       be intentional. In exercising our forfeiture 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." In addition, the
       Commission has established guidelines for forfeiture amounts and,
       where there is no specific base amount for a violation, retained
       discretion to set an amount on a case-by-case basis.

    6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base
       forfeiture amount for the failure to timely file an annual CPNI
       certification. The $3,000 base forfeiture amount suggested in the
       Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement for failure to file documents
       generally is inadequate when applied to failure to file CPNI
       certifications. The Commission adopted the annual CPNI certification
       filing requirement to "ensure that carriers regularly focus their
       attention on their duty to safeguard CPNI. . . [and] remind carriers
       of the Commission's oversight and high priority regarding carrier
       performance in this area." In the Omnibus NAL, the Bureau took into
       account the statutory factors for determining a forfeiture amount, the
       gravity of the offense, Commission precedent involving violations of
       our CPNI rules, and the fact that protection of a subscriber's CPNI is
       an important carrier obligation and the certification filing is an
       important part of that obligation. Taking these factors into account,
       the Bureau proposed a forfeiture amount in the Omnibus NAL of $20,000.
       This amount is consistent with other recent forfeiture orders.
       Further, we have examined Voip Alliance's response to the LOI,
       pursuant to the statutory factors, our rules, and the Forfeiture
       Policy Statement and find that no further downward adjustment from the
       $20,000 forfeiture amount is warranted.

    7. As a preliminary matter, Voip Alliance's failure to timely file its
       annual 2007 CPNI certification is not disputed. By its own admission,
       Voip Alliance failed to file its CPNI certification by the March 1st
       filing deadline. Voip Alliance may have been unaware that it was
       required to file an annual CPNI certification, or unaware that it had
       failed to do so; however, oversight or inadvertently not filing is not
       a mitigating factor.

    8. In addition, Voip Alliance failed to show past compliance with the
       Commission's CPNI certification requirements. Prior to the annual
       certification filing requirement, carriers were required to have a
       CPNI compliance plan and keep an annual CPNI compliance certificate in
       their files (i.e., carriers were required to annually certify but were
       not required to file the certification with the Commission). In lieu
       of an annual filing requirement, carriers were required to produce
       their annual certifications for inspection upon Commission request.
       Voip Alliance has failed to show that it was in compliance with the
       earlier certification requirement. Thus, the Commission cannot
       consider past CPNI compliance as a mitigating factor.

   III. conclusion

    9. In the Omnibus NAL, the Bureau considered several factors including
       the amount of forfeiture necessary to have the intended deterrent
       effect. The Bureau concluded that the goal of deterring future
       non-compliance would be met by issuing forfeitures consistent with the
       proposed amount. We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very
       seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Voip Alliance and other
       carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual
       CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important
       carrier obligations.

   IV. ordering clauses

   10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section
       1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Voip Alliance,
       LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000
       for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's
       rules.

   11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of
       this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period
       specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for
       collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. 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 No. and FRN referenced above. Payment by check
       or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission,
       P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail
       may be sent to U.S. Bank-Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C 2-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 24A. Voip Alliance
       will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is
       made to johnny.drake@fcc.gov. 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. 

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall
       be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and First Class
       Mail to the company at 200 S. 10th Street, Suite 702, McAllen, TX
       78501.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Richard A. Hindman

   Chief

   Telecommunications Consumers Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   The Commission has the authority to assess a forfeiture against any person
   who has "willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any of the
   provisions of this [Act] or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by
   the Commission under this [Act] ...." 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1).

   47 U.S.C. S: 222.

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e).

   Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications
   Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other
   Customer Information; IP-Enabled Services, CC Docket No. 96-115, WC Docket
   No. 04-36, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22
   FCC Rcd 6927, 6953 (2007) ("EPIC CPNI Order"); aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Cable
   & Telecom. Assoc. v. FCC, 555 F.3d 996, (D.C. Cir. 2009).

   Section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C S: 222, provides that:
   "Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the
   confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other
   telecommunications carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers,
   including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services
   provided by a telecommunications carrier."

   The Act defines CPNI as "information that relates to the quantity,
   technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of
   a telecommunications service, subscribed to by any customer of a
   telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by
   the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship" and
   "information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone exchange
   service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a carrier"
   excluding subscriber list information. 47 U.S.C. S: 222(h)(1)(A)-(B). The
   Act provides for certain limited exceptions to a carrier's obligation to
   protect CPNI. See 47 U.S.C. S: 222(d).

   See Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
   Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
   Information and Other Customer Information and Implementation of
   Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications
   Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket Nos. 96-115 and 96-149, Second Report
   and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 8061,
   8068-70, P: 7 (1998). See also  Implementation of the Telecommunications
   Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary
   Network Information and Other Customer Information and Implementation of
   the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket Nos. 96-115 and 96-149,
   Order on Reconsideration and Petitions for Forbearance, 14 FCC Rcd 14409
   (1999);  Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
   Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
   Information and Other Customer Information and Implementation of the
   Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications
   Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket Nos. 96-115 and 96-149; 2000 Biennial
   Regulatory Review -- Review of Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized
   Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 00-257,  Third
   Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC
   Rcd 14860 (2002); EPIC CPNI Order.

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009.

   See EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953-54, P: 52.

   Id. at 6953; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e).

   EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953.

   See Letter from Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Voip Alliance (Sept. 2,
   2008).

   See Letter from Juan Salazar, CEO and President, Voip Alliance, to the FCC
   (Sept. 17, 2008) ("LOI Response").

   Annual CPNI Certification, Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 2299 (Enf. Bur. 2009) ("Omnibus NAL").

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e); see also EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953-54,
   P:P: 51-53.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also  47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of
   Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima
   to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (inflation adjustment
   to $150,000/$1,500,000); FCC Enforcement Advisory No. 2011-02, 26 FCC Rcd
   650 (Enf. Bur. 2011). At the time the Omnibus NAL was released the maximum
   forfeiture was $130,000 for each violation of the Act or of any rule,
   regulation, or order issued by the Commission. See Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd
   at 2301, P: 5.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B).

   See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387-88, P: 5.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E); see also The Commission's Forfeiture Policy
   Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC
   Rcd 17087, 17100-17101, P: 27 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement");
   recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17098-99, P: 22.

   EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 51.

   See Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2302, P: 8; see also EPIC CPNI Order, 22
   FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 51.

   See USA Teleport, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, EB-08-TC-5801,
   Order of Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 2456 (Tel. Con. Div. 2011), recon. denied,
   Memorandum Opinion & Order, DA 11-802 (Enf. Bur. Apr. 29, 2011); Think 12
   Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot,  Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   EB-08-TC-5708, Order of Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 2135 (Tel. Con. Div. 2011);
   Nationwide Telecom, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   EB-08-TC-4772, Order of Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 2440 (Tel. Con. Div. 2011);
   Calmtel USA, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, EB-08-TC-3240, Order
   of Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 2445 (Tel. Con. Div. 2011); Diamond Phone, Inc.,
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, EB-08-TC-3704, Order of Forfeiture, 26
   FCC Rcd 2451 (Tel. Con. Div. 2011).

   See LOI Response ("The answer would be no, we did not file this compliance
   and we were not aware of this filing requirement").

   See Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387, P: 3; see also
   STI Prepaid, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd
   17836, 17845, P: 20 (Enf. Bur. 2010) ("STI Prepaid") ("It is well
   established that administrative oversight or inadvertence is not a
   mitigating factor warranting a downward adjustment of a forfeiture.
   Likewise, a violator's lack of knowledge or erroneous beliefs is not a
   mitigating factor warranting reduction of a forfeiture."). This case is
   different than where the rule was recently modified and the violation was
   due to a licensee's lack of actual knowledge of the rule change. Prior to
   adoption of the annual CPNI certification filing requirement, our CPNI
   rules already required telecommunications carriers such as Voip Alliance
   to have a CPNI compliance program and to have an officer of the company
   certify annually that the company was in compliance with our CPNI rules.
   See EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 52. As discussed in paragraph
   7, Voip Alliance failed to show it had complied with the certification
   filings under the old rules. Thus, any lack of knowledge in the instant
   case does not warrant a downward adjustment.

   Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2302, P: 7. This prior rule is discussed in the
   EPIC CPNI Order: "each telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as
   an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis
   stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has
   established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance
   with the Commission's CPNI rules and to make that certification available
   to the public." EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 52 (citation
   omitted).

   Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2302, P: 7.

   Moreover, in a number of recent actions, the Commission has held that the
   failure to file forms is a continuing violation until cured. See Annual
   CPNI Certification, Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
   and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 2160, 2162, P: 8 (Enf. Bur. 2011); STI Prepaid, LLC,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 17836, 17845, P:
   20 (Enf. Bur. 2010); Champaign Telephone Company d/b/a CT Communications,
   Inc., Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd
   17814, 17818-18, P: 9 (Spec. Enf. Div. 2010); Lightyear Network Solutions,
   LLC, Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd
   16212, 16217, P: 12 (Spec. Enf. Div. 2010); Alpheus Communications, LP,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 8993, 8998, P: 12
   (Enf. Bur. 2010); Compass Global, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6125, 6138-39, P: 31 (2008); Telrite Corp., Notice
   of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7244, P:
   30 (2008); VCI Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
   Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940, P: 20 (2007). Thus, Voip Alliance
   continued to violate the certification filing requirement for calendar
   year 2007 until it filed the certification.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1025

   6

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1025