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-5708      
     Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello        )                               
     Depot                                       NAL/Acct. No. 201032170826  
                                             )                               
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture           FRN: 0010729283             
                                             )                               
                                                                             
                                             )                               
                                                                             
                                             )                               


                              ORDER OF FORFEITURE

   Adopted: February 25, 2011 Released: February 25, 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 Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello
       Depot ("Think 12") for willfully or repeatedly violating 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. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois
       providing resold interexchange services. As a telecommunications
       carrier, Think 12 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.
       Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all
       telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. The
       Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system
       designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their
       subscribers' CPNI. The Commission strengthened its privacy rules with
       the release of the EPIC CPNI Order,  requiring that all companies
       subject to the CPNI rules file annually, on or before March 1, a
       certification with the Commission pursuant to amended rule 47 C.F.R.
       S: 64.2009(e).

    3. After receiving information that Think 12 had not timely filed its
       CPNI certification for calendar year 2007, the Bureau sent a Letter of
       Inquiry ("LOI") to Think 12 on September 2, 2008. In the LOI the
       Bureau asked Think 12 to provide copies and evidence of its timely
       filed CPNI compliance certification for 2007, which was due by March
       1, 2008, or an explanation as to why no certification was filed. In
       response to the Bureau's inquiry, Think 12 submitted its CPNI
       compliance certification for 2007. The Bureau concluded that Think 12
       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 Think
       12, 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 Think 12 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. Think 12 filed a response to the Omnibus NAL on
       March 25, 2009. The response confirmed that Think 12 had violated the
       Commission's rules by failing to timely file its 2007 CPNI compliance
       certification.

   II. discussion

    4. Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules requires
       telecommunications carriers such as Think 12 to file annually before
       March 1st a CPNI compliance certification signed by an officer of the
       carrier. By its own admission, Think 12 failed to comply with this
       Commission rule 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.

    5. 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. In the Omnibus NAL, the Commission took into account
       the statutory factors for determining a forfeiture amount, the gravity
       of the offense, FCC 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 in protecting subscriber CPNI. Taking these factors
       into account, the Commission proposed a forfeiture amount in the
       Omnibus NAL of $20,000 which is significantly lower than the maximum
       allowable forfeiture under section 503(b) and is also much lower than
       the $100,000 forfeitures assessed against carriers in prior Commission
       actions involving violations of our CPNI rules. Further, we have
       examined Think 12's response to the NAL, 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.

    6. As a preliminary matter, Think 12's failure to timely file its annual
       2007 CPNI certification is not disputed. By its own admission, Think
       12 failed to file its CPNI certification by the March 1st filing
       deadline. Think 12 submitted the required certification only after the
       Commission notified it that it was investigating Think 12's compliance
       with our rules and that it might be subject to enforcement action,
       including forfeitures. The fact that Think 12 may have been unaware
       that it was required to file an annual CPNI certification and then
       filed it after it was notified by the Commission, or that it had a
       personnel turnover which caused it not to file, does not rise to the
       level of a mitigating factor warranting a downward adjustment.
       Claiming ignorance of one's responsibility under the law is not a
       mitigating factor.

    7. In addition, Think 12 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.
       Think 12 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.

    8. We also disagree with Think 12 characterization of its violation of
       our CPNI rules as being "merely procedural" and thus warranting
       downward adjustment. The annual certification filing obligation is
       specifically intended to "ensure that carriers regularly focus their
       attention on their duty to safeguard CPNI" and allow the Commission to
       "monitor the industry's response to CPNI privacy issues and to take
       any necessary steps to ensure that carriers are managing customer CPNI
       securely." Given its purpose, the annual certification filing is
       clearly more than mere procedure. In addition, as we discussed above,
       Think 12 has failed to show that it maintained an annual, but unfiled,
       CPNI compliance certification. Thus, even if we were to consider a
       downward adjustment based on a late-filed annual certification, no
       such downward adjustment is warranted in this case because Think 12
       has failed to show that it has a history of compliance with our CPNI
       rules.

    9. With respect to inability to pay or hardship adjustment, we stated in
       the Omnibus NAL:

   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.

   In response, Think 12 provided tax returns for years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
   Relying on the most recent reliable financial information provided by
   Think 12 and considering the range that the Commission has previously
   found reasonable in determining inability to pay, we conclude that Think
   12 has not demonstrated an inability to pay the proposed forfeiture amount
   of $20,000.

   10. Finally, we find Think 12's statement that it "has never been the
       subject of a prior NAL or forfeiture order" without merit and not
       warranting a downward adjustment. This statement, while literally
       correct, fails to properly disclose that Think 12 has a history of
       non-compliance with the Commission's rules. Section 503(b)(2)(E)
       requires us to consider an entity's past violations in determining a
       forfeiture penalty: "the Commission or its designee shall take into
       account ... with respect to the violator, any history of prior
       offenses...." Think 12's history of non-compliance with our rules does
       not support its argument for a downward adjustment.

   III. conclusion

   11. 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 Think 12 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

   12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) and section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Think 12 Corporation d/b/a
       Hello Depot SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of
       $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the
       Commission's rules.

   13. 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. Think 12
       Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot 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. 

   14. 15. 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's attorney at Technology Law Group, 5335
       Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C. 20015.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Richard A. Hindman

   Chief

   Telecommunications Consumers Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1). The Commission has the authority under this
   section of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 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 ...." For a violation to
   be willful, it need not be intentional. See Application for Review of
   Southern California Broadcasting Co. Licensee, Radio Station KIEV (AM)
   Glendale, California, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
   4387-88, P: 5 (1991) ("Southern California Broadcasting"), recon. denied,
   7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).

   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, P: 51 (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."

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e) is one such requirement.

   EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 51; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e).
   Specifically, pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier
   must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign and file with the
   Commission a compliance certificate on an annual basis. The officer must
   state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
   company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure
   compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
   statement accompanying the certification explaining how its operating
   procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules in
   this subpart. In addition, the carrier must include 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. This filing must be made annually with the Enforcement Bureau on
   or before March 1 in EB Docket No. 06-36, for data pertaining to the
   previous calendar year. See also Enforcement Advisory No. 2011-02, DA
   11-159 (Jan. 28, 2011); Enforcement Advisory No. 2010-01, DA 10-91 (Jan.
   15, 2010).

   Think 12 submitted its 2007 CPNI compliance certification on September 22,
   2008 to the Bureau after it received notice from the Commission of this
   investigation of Think 12's potential non-compliance with section 222 of
   the Act and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules. See Think 12's
   "Annual 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e) CPNI Certification," dated Sept. 18, 2008.
   The actual filing date appears to be March 2, 2009.

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

   See "Response to Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,"
   Mar. 25, 2009 ("Response to NAL").

   In the Declaration submitted with the Response to NAL, Jeom Heui Lee,
   President of Think 12, states "Think 12 was not aware it was required to
   file a CPNI certification statement for 2007 by March 1, 2008, until it
   received a letter from the Commission in September 2008." Declaration at
   1.

   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, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 1038
   (1997)(inflation adjustment to $100,000/$1,100,000); Amendment of Section
   1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to
   Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000)(inflation adjustment to
   $120,000/$1,200,000); 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). See also
   FCC Enforcement Advisory, DA 11-159 (Jan. 28, 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 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 (The annual certification
   filing is "an appropriate measure and will ensure that carriers regularly
   focus their attention on their duty to safeguard CPN. Additionally, [the
   annual certification] will remind carriers of the Commission's oversight
   and high priority regarding carrier performance in this area. Further,
   with this filing, the commission will be better able to monitor the
   industry's response to CPNI privacy issues and to take any necessary steps
   to ensure that carriers are managing customer CPNI securely.").

   See Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2299-2303, P:P: 5-8. The prior actions
   involved violations of the Commission's CPNI rules in effect in 2006. See
   id. at 2302, P: 7.

   Response to NAL at 14 ("Respondent was unaware of its CPNI filing
   requirements until it received the Commission's letter in September 2008,
   and to which it promptly filed and in good faith on September 19, 2008.");
   Declaration at 1 ("Think 12 was not aware it was required to file a CPNI
   certification statement for 2007 by March 1, 2008, until it received a
   letter from the Commission in September 2008.").

   See supra n. 20; see also Response to NAL at 14 ("Respondent employed a
   person responsible for handling regulatory matters. However, that
   individual was not longer employed by Respondent and there was no
   transition of the regulatory responsibilities to an existing employee.")

   See Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387, P: 3; Kenneth
   Paul Harris, Sr., Proposed Assignee, Station KSRW (FM) Childress, Texas,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 12933, 12935, P: 7
   (Enf. Bur. 2000). 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 Think 12 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, Think 12 failed to show
   it had complied with the certification filings under the old rules let
   alone the new filing requirement. 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.

   The 2007 CPNI compliance certification Think 12 submitted to the Bureau on
   September 22, 2008 was dated Sept. 18, 2008.

   Response to NAL at 14. ("Respondent has complied with the Commission's
   objectives regarding the protection of CPNI information. Accordingly,
   Respondent's error, if any, is merely procedural.")

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

   Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2304, P: 16.

   Subsequently, staff requested more recent tax returns; counsel for Think
   12 provided approximated gross revenues for 2007 and 2008 in an email. See
   email from Susan Colman to Mika Savir (Feb. 17, 2011).

   The Commission has the discretion to determine the most reliable financial
   information to use in determining ability to pay. See Coleman Enterprises,
   Inc. d/b/a Local Long Distance, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 24385, 24388, P: 11 (2000) ("Local Long
   Distance"), recon. denied, 16 FCC Rcd 10016 (2001).

   See, e.g., Local Long Distance, 15 FCC Rcd at 24388, P: 11 (The Commission
   reduced the forfeiture amount from $1,120,000 to $750,000.) See also
   Hoosier Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
   8640, 8641,P: 7 (2000).

   See Long Distance Direct, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3297, 3305-06, P:P: 22-23 (2000).

   Response to NAL at 14.

   See, e.g., Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot, Complaint Regarding
   Unauthorized Change of Subscriber's Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 22
   FCC Rcd 3536 (CGB 2007); Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot, Complaint
   Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber's Telecommunications Carrier,
   Order, 21 FCC Rcd 7067 (CGB 2006); Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot,
   Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber's Telecommunications
   Carrier, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1903 (CGB 2006); Think 12 Corporation d/b/a
   Hello Depot, Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber's
   Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 15396 (CGB 2005).

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

   Think 12's other arguments and broad assertions that the Omnibus NAL is
   unconstitutional, violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and somehow
   strips Think 12 of a presumption of "innocence" by attempting to
   unlawfully shift burdens of proof to Think 12, are without merit. They
   ignore the simple fact that Think 12 admits that it violated the
   Commission's CPNI certification rule - the very rule at issue in the
   Omnibus NAL - and thus, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications
   Act, it is subject to forfeiture.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-365

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-365