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-11-IH-0734      
                                                                        
     VERMONT TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC.   )   NAL/Acct. No.: 201232080004  
                                                                        
     Participant in Auction No. 86     )   FRN: 0005209374              
                                                                        
                                       )                                


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: October 14, 2011 Released: October 14, 2011

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Vermont Telephone Company, Inc. ("VTel"), apparently violated
       sections 1.17 and 1.65 of the Commission's rules ("Rules") by
       willfully and repeatedly failing to submit accurate revenue
       information to the Commission and by failing to maintain the
       continuing accuracy of its application in connection with its
       participation in Auction No. 86. Based on our review of the facts and
       circumstances surrounding this matter, and for the reasons discussed
       below, we find that VTel is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
       total amount of $34,000.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. In Auction No. 86, a bidder whose attributable average annual gross
       revenues for the preceding three years exceeded $15 million, but did
       not exceed $40 million, was designated as a "small business" and
       entitled to receive a 15 percent discount on its winning bid(s).
       Pursuant to section 1.2110 of the Rules, an applicant claiming status
       as a small business entity in Auction No. 86 was required to disclose,
       for each of the three years preceding the auction, the gross revenues
       of each of the following entities: (1) the applicant, (2) its
       affiliates, (3) its controlling interests, (4) the affiliates of its
       controlling interests, and (5) the entities with which it has an
       attributable material relationship. Successful small business auction
       participants were required to provide the required detailed financial
       information after the auction closed.

    3. VTel is a family-owned telephone company that began serving rural
       Vermont in 1890. According to its website, VTel is "one of the largest
       owners of FCC wireless licenses in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Upstate
       New York." On August 17, 2009, VTel filed an application on FCC Form
       175 (commonly referred to as a pre-auction "short-form" application)
       to participate in Auction No. 86. Therein, VTel claimed status as a
       small business entity and sought a 15 percent bidding credit on any
       licenses for which it was the high bidder. Auction No. 86 was held
       from October 27, 2009 to October 30, 2009. VTel was a successful
       bidder for three BRS licenses.

    4. On November 20, 2009, VTel filed its post-auction "long-form"
       application on FCC Form 601. In VTel's Ownership Report, J. Michel
       Guite was identified as an officer, director, and an owner of VTel. 
       The Ownership Report also identified Walter Hewlett as one of VTel's
       controlling interest holders based on his status as an individual
       major shareholder of the company and his role as Trustee of the Guite
       Family Trust, another major shareholder in VTel. In its long-form
       application, as initially filed, VTel represented that Walter Hewlett
       had no gross revenues for each of the three years preceding the
       auction (2006, 2007, and 2008). Thereafter, staff from the Wireless
       Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB"), the bureau responsible for
       processing VTel's auction-related filings, contacted VTel and inquired
       further about its ownership structure. In response, VTel twice amended
       its long-form application - on February 18 and April 23, 2010 - each
       time affirmatively representing Walter Hewlett's gross revenues as
       zero.

    5. While processing VTel's application materials, WTB staff asked VTel
       whether Walter Hewlett was related in any way to the Hewletts of the
       Hewlett-Packard Corporation family. VTel's counsel at the time
       confirmed that Mr. Hewlett was so related. Given that the
       Hewlett-Packard Corporation is a large, multi-national company with
       considerable revenues, WTB staff requested that VTel verify the extent
       of Mr. Hewlett's revenues during the relevant three-year period. On
       August 9, 2010, VTel filed a third amendment to its long-form
       application, disclosing for the first time to the Commission that Mr.
       Hewlett's had substantial gross revenues for each of the three
       relevant years.

    6. The disclosure of Mr. Hewlett's revenues during the relevant
       three-year period did not adversely affect VTel's entitlement to a
       small business bidding credit. Accordingly, on May 19, 2011, WTB
       granted VTel's long-form application, as amended.  WTB then referred
       the matter of VTel's conduct in Auction No. 86 to the Enforcement
       Bureau ("EB") for investigation. On May 26, 2011, EB commenced an
       investigation by sending a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to VTel
       requesting information and documents about Mr. Hewlett's gross
       revenues. VTel filed its response on June 27, 2011.

   III. DISCUSSION

    7. Under section 503(b)(1) of the Act, any person who is determined by
       the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
       any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
       the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
       penalty. Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as "the
       conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] act,
       irrespective of any intent to violate" the law. The legislative
       history to section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition
       of willful applies to both sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act and the
       Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 503(b) context.
       The Commission may also assess a forfeiture for violations that are
       merely repeated, and not willful.  "Repeated" means that the act was
       committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day. To
       impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must first issue a
       notice of apparent liability and the person against whom the notice
       has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no
       such forfeiture penalty should be imposed. The Commission will then
       issue a forfeiture if it finds, based on the evidence, that the person
       has violated the Act, a Rule, or a Commission Order.

    8. Section 1.17 of the Rules states that no person may provide, in any
       written statement of fact, "material factual information that is
       incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to prevent
       any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or
       misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such
       material factual statement is correct and not misleading." In 2003,
       the Commission expanded the scope of section 1.17 of the Rules to
       include written statements that are made without a reasonable basis
       for believing the statement is correct and not misleading. At that
       time, the Commission explained that this requirement was intended to
       more clearly articulate the obligations of persons dealing with the
       Commission, ensure that they exercise due diligence in preparing
       written submissions, and enhance the effectiveness of the Commission's
       enforcement efforts. Thus, even in the absence of an intent to
       deceive, a false statement provided without a reasonable basis for
       believing that the statement is correct and not misleading constitutes
       an actionable violation of section 1.17 of the Rules.

    9. In its LOI Response, VTel maintains that it had a reasonable basis for
       believing that Mr. Hewlett had no reportable gross revenues during the
       relevant three year period because it relied on advice of counsel.
       Specifically, VTel contends that it was advised by counsel that the
       FCC "was seeking information regarding relationships with other
       entities that may be guiding or directly or indirectly controlling
       VTel to determine if VTel was actually representing larger entities -
       e.g., AT&T, Comcast, a private equity or other investment fund, or a
       telecommunications manufacturer - in seeking a bidding credit in
       Auction No. 86." VTel also argues that no unjust enrichment occurred
       because Mr. Hewlett's revenues, even after they were disclosed, had no
       adverse impact on VTel's entitlement to a small business bidding
       credit. These arguments lack merit. First, the Commission's designated
       entity rules require applicants to disclose revenues from all sources,
       without qualification, during the relevant time frame. There are no
       qualitative exceptions of the kind on which VTel claims to have
       relied. Second, WTB issued a pre- and post-auction Public Notice for
       Auction No. 86 setting forth the information that applicants were
       required to disclose in support of a claim of designated entity
       status. Thus, VTel had additional advance and ample notice, beyond the
       Commission's rules, of the auction-related reporting requirements.
       Finally, VTel provided revenue information for Four Winds Farms, Inc.
       (Four Winds) in its initial long-form application. Four Winds' average
       gross revenues for the reported three year time period was $5,900. In
       addition, it appears that Four Winds does not appear to have a
       relationship with the other entities identified on the VTel long-form
       application that may be guiding, or directly or indirectly controlling
       VTel. Therefore, it appears that VTel did not consistently apply the
       advice it says it received from its counsel. By having provided
       information about Four Winds, VTel essentially undermines its argument
       about the advice it received from counsel and its understanding of
       what our rules required.

   10. As the Commission has stated, parties must "use due diligence in
       providing information that is correct and not misleading to the
       Commission, including taking appropriate affirmative steps to
       determine the truthfulness of what is being submitted. A failure to
       exercise such reasonable diligence would mean that the party did not
       have a reasonable basis for believing in the truthfulness of the
       information." In this case, rather than failing to mention Mr. Hewlett
       at all, VTel repeatedly included Mr. Hewlett and listed his revenues
       as zero, even after several inquiries by WTB staff. The statements
       provided by VTel were false, and VTel had no reasonable basis for
       believing that the statements were correct and not misleading. We
       conclude, therefore, that VTel made these statements in apparent
       willful and repeated violation of section 1.17(a)(1) of the
       Commission's Rules.

   11. In addition, section 1.65 of the Rules provides that "[e]ach applicant
       is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of
       information furnished in a pending application or in Commission
       proceedings involving a pending application." Section 1.65 also
       requires that applicants amend their applications within 30 days,
       unless good cause is shown, of any substantial change in information
       provided to the Commission.

   12. In the instant case, VTel failed to maintain the continuing accuracy
       of its pending long-form application, in apparent willful and repeated
       violation of section 1.65. VTel initially filed its long-form
       application in November 2009. In its long-form application, VTel
       affirmatively represented to the Commission that Mr. Hewlett had no
       gross revenues for each of the three relevant years. In addition, VTel
       subsequently filed two amendments to its long-form application in
       which it provided identical gross revenue information for Mr. Hewlett
       that was later revealed to be inaccurate. In fact, it was not until
       the Commission staff questioned the veracity of the information
       because of Mr. Hewlett's familial relations that VTel finally
       disclosed the extent of Mr. Hewlett's gross revenues, almost a full
       year after the filing its long-form application. VTel was, at all
       relevant times, required under section 1.65 to maintain the accuracy
       of the information it provided to the Commission about the extent of
       Mr. Hewlett's revenues, and EB's investigation reveals that on no
       fewer than three separate and distinct occasions, VTel failed to do so
       in its long-form application. VTel's derelictions in this matter are
       significant because the Commission relied on the information provided
       by VTel to assess the merits of the company's claimed entitlement to a
       bidding credit. The fact that VTel remained qualified to receive the
       bidding credit after subsequently attributing Mr. Hewlett's revenues
       to VTel is of no consequence to EB's determination here that VTel
       apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 1.65 of the
       Rules. Indeed, the relevant issue is that Mr. Hewlett's revenues could
       have prevented VTel from obtaining a bidding credit, which in turn,
       could have impacted the Auction No. 86 results. Thus, the Commission
       was unable to determine both the actual amount owed by VTel, and
       whether VTel was still entitled to the small business bidding credit,
       until after Mr. Hewlett's full income was disclosed.

   13. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section
       503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the
       Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent,
       and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any
       history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as
       justice may require."  Consistent with Commission precedent, we find
       that a base forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate for
       VTel's violation of section 1.17 of the Rules. In addition, the
       Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing Rules
       prescribe a base forfeiture of $3,000 for each failure to file
       required forms or information. Accordingly, we find that the base
       forfeiture of $3,000 is appropriate for each one of the three Form
       601s that VTel submitted listing Mr. Hewlett's gross revenues as zero.
       Therefore, we conclude that a proposed base forfeiture of $9,000
       against VTel is warranted for VTel's repeated failure to file required
       forms or information. Thus, based on the facts and circumstances
       presented, we conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $34,000 against
       VTel is warranted.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and
       section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that
       Vermont Telephone Company, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT
       LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $34,000 for willfully and
       repeatedly violating sections 1.17 and 1.65 of the Commission's Rules.

   15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
       Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
       Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, VTel SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   16. 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/Acct. 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-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
       63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 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). VTel
       will also send electronic notification within forty-eight (48) hours
       of the date said payment is made to Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov,
       Gary.Schonman@fcc.gov and Pam.Slipakoff@fcc.gov.

   17. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
       proposed forfeitures, if any, must include a detailed factual
       statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits
       pursuant to sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Commission's rules.
       The written statement must be mailed to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, Acting
       Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau,
       Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330,
       Washington, D.C. 20554 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced
       above. The written statement should also be emailed to Terry Cavanaugh
       at Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov, Gary Schonman at Gary.Schonman@fcc.gov and
       Pam Slipakoff at Pam.Slipakoff@fcc.gov.

   18. 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 (GAAP); 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.

   19. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture under an installment plan should be sent to:
       Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C. 20554. For answers to questions regarding payment
       procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at
       1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
       requested, to counsel for VTel: Bennett L. Ross, Esq., Wiley Rein
       LLP., 1776 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.17, 1.65.

   The spectrum associated with licenses auctioned in Auction No. 86 was
   previously allocated and made available under the Multipoint Distribution
   Services ("MDS") and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service
   ("MMDS"), the predecessor services to Broadband Radio Service ("BRS"). The
   licenses offered in Auction No. 86 consisted of the available spectrum in
   78 BRS service areas. BRS service areas are BTAs or additional service
   areas similar to BTAs adopted by the Commission. See Auction of Broadband
   Service (BRS) Licenses Scheduled for October 27, 2009, AU Docket No. 09-56
   Notice and Filing Requirement, Minimum Up Front Payment, and Other
   Procedure for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 8277 (WTB 2009)
   (Auction No. 86 June 26, 2009 Public Notice).

   We note that VTel has now fully disclosed all information required under
   our rules; as a result, this Notice of Apparent Liability addresses VTel's
   initial failures to timely submit complete and accurate information.

   See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.2110(f)(2)(iii), 27.1218; Auction No. 86 June 26,
   2009 Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd at 8296.

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.2110(b)(1)(i), 1.2110(b)(3)(iv)(B). See also Order on
   Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, and
   Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 00-274, 15 FCC Rcd
   15,293, 15323-27 (2000) (modified by Erratum, DA 00-2475, 15 FCC Rcd
   24,501).

   See http://www.vermontel.com/about.

   Id.

   See Form 175, File No. 0003937211 (filed Aug. 17, 2009).

   Id.

   See http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=ebs_brs
   ("BRS formerly known as the Multipoint Distribution Service
   (MDS)/Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS), is a commercial
   service. In the past, it was generally used for the transmission of data
   and video programming to subscribers using high-powered systems, also
   known as wireless cable. However, over the years, the uses have evolved to
   include digital two-way systems capable of providing high-speed,
   high-capacity broadband service, including two-way Internet service via
   cellularized communication systems. Such services provide consumers
   integrated access to voice, high-speed data, video-on-demand, and
   interactive delivery services from a wireless device.").

   See Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Nov. 20, 2009).

   See Form 602, File No. 0003937211 (filed Mar. 31, 2009).

   See id. VTel submitted an additional Ownership Report after the close of
   Auction No. 86. See Form 602, File No. 0004129864 (filed Feb. 18, 2010).

   See Amended Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Feb. 18, 2010); Amended
   Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Apr. 23, 2010).

   See Amended Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Aug. 9, 2010). VTel
   subsequently amended its long form two more times and further refined Mr.
   Hewlett's gross revenues for 2007 and 2008.

   Once Mr. Hewlett's gross revenues were included, VTel's total average
   gross revenues were $28,369,000, $28,925,000 and $29,260,000 for 2006,
   2007, and 2008, respectively.  See Amended Form 601, File No. 0004040603
   (filed Mar. 30, 2011). Thus, VTel's average revenues for the reported
   years were $28,851,333.33, which was still under the $40,000,000  maximum
   to be eligible for the small business bidding credit.

   See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Broadband Radio Service
   Licenses, Report No. AUC-86 (Auction 86), Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 6990
   (WTB 2011).

   See Letter from Gary Schonman, Special Counsel, Investigations & Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Dr. J. Michael Guite, Chairman,
   Vermont Telephone Company, Inc., dated May 26, 2011 ("LOI").

   See Letter from Bennett L. Ross, Esq., Wiley Rein, Counsel for Vermont
   Telephone Company, to Pam Slipakoff, Attorney Advisor, Investigations &
   Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, dated June 27, 2011 ("LOI
   Response").

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. S:
   503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. S: 1464).

   47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1).

   H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).

   See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co.,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) ("Southern
   California Broadcasting Co.").

   See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, P: 10
   (2001) ("Callais Cablevision") (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability
   for, inter alia, a cable television operator's repeated signal leakage).

   Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, P: 5; Callais
   Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, P: 9.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f).

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, P: 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(a)(2).

   See Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning
   Truthful Statements to the Commission, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016,
   4021 (2003), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 5790,
   further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250
   (2004) ("Amendment of Section 1.17").

   Id.

   See id. at 4017 (stating that the revision to Section 1.17 of the Rules is
   intended to "prohibit incorrect statements of omissions that are the
   results of negligence, as well as an intent to deceive").

   See LOI Response at 2.

   Id.

   See Id. at 1.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.2110(b).

   See Auction No. 86 June 26, 2009 Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8277, 8297-99,
   8323-24; Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes Winning Bidder
   Announced for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572, Attachment E
   (WTB 2009)

   See Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Nov. 20, 2009).

   See id.

   See Cricket Communications, Inc., Order and Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 989, 991 (Enf. Bur 2011) ("Cricket
   Communications")

   Amendment of Section 1.17, 18 FCC Rcd at 4021; Cricket Communications,
   Inc., 26 FCC Rcd at 991.

   47 C.F.R. 1.17(a)(1); See, e.g Cricket Communications, Inc., 26 FCC Rcd at
   992.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.65(a).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.65.

   See Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Nov. 20, 2009).

   See Amended Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Feb. 18, 2010); Amended
   Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Apr. 23, 2010).

   See Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Nov. 20, 2009); Amended Form 601;
   Amended Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Feb. 18, 2010); and Amended
   Form 601, File No. 0004040603 (filed Apr. 23, 2010).

   The Commission's small business bidding credits are designed to enhance
   access to telecommunications services by encouraging broad participation
   in the provision of spectrum-based services and ensuring that
   spectrum-based services are available to a wide range of consumers.  See
   Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive
   Bidding, Second Report and Order, PP Docket No. 93-253, 9 FCC Rcd
   2348, 2350 Para. 6 (1993).  They also implement Congress' directive to
   "promot[e] economic opportunity and competition and ensur[e] that new and
   innovative technologies are readily available to the American people by
   avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses
   among a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses..."  See 47
   U.S.C. Sec. 309(j)(3)(B).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(4).

   See, e.g Cricket Communications, Inc., 26 FCC Rcd at 993-94 (proposing a
   $20,000 forfeiture for Cricket's failure to file the correct construction
   date for station WQJE535. The proposed forfeiture reflects a downward
   adjustment from $25,000 as a result of Cricket's voluntary disclosures to
   Commission staff); Cardinal Broadband LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 12233 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (proposing a $25,000
   forfeiture against an interconnected VoIP provider and common carrier for
   its violation of 1.17(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80; Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,
   17113 (1997).

   See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.17, 1.65(a).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   See 47 C.F.R.  S:S: 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.

   See 47 C.F.R.  S: 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1536

   5

   2

                                 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1536