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


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-10-TC-464        
     Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC               NAL/Acct. No.: 201132170020  
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       FRN: 0017385527              


   Adopted: June 7, 2011 Released: June 16, 2011

   By the Commission:


    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC ("Cheap2Dial" or "Company") has
       apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 201(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or
       "Act"), by "cramming" monthly charges for its dial-around long
       distance service on consumers' local telephone bills without
       authorization of any kind from them. Over a twelve-month period,
       Cheap2Dial billed as many as 18,571 consumers monthly, during which
       time no more than 22 consumers (or 0.1 percent) ever actually used its
       service. Based upon our review of the facts and surrounding
       circumstances, we find that Cheap2Dial is apparently liable for a
       proposed forfeiture in the amount of three million dollars


    2. Cramming, the practice of adding charges to a customer's local
       telephone bill without the customer's authorization, results in
       significant consumer harm. Charges can often range from $2.99 to as
       much as $19.99 per month, and can go undetected by consumers for many
       months or longer because they are not generally disclosed clearly or
       conspicuously on the bill. The cramming entity can be the customer's
       own local exchange carrier ("LEC") or an unaffiliated third-party such
       as Cheap2Dial, in the instant case. The charges can be for additional
       telephone services, voice mail and similar services, or for other
       unrelated products and services such as chat lines, diet plans, and

    3. The Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") began its investigation of
       Cheap2Dial on September 23, 2010, by issuing a letter of inquiry to
       the Company requesting information and documents relating to its
       charges for long distance service. In its initial response, dated
       November 8, 2010, Cheap2Dial represented, among other things, that it
       provides domestic interexchange telecommunications service on a resale
       basis through two "dial-around" service plans: the Max Minutes Plan,
       which offers 358 minutes of domestic interexchange calling per month
       for $13.97, and the Max Minutes Plus Plan, which provides 383 minutes
       of domestic interexchange calling per month for $14.97. Cheap2Dial
       also charges consumers monthly a maximum billing fee of $5.95 and
       applicable Universal Service Fund charges.

    4. Cheap2Dial's process for billing consumers involves three parties:
       Cheap2Dial; its billing aggregator, Billing Solutions Group, Limited
       d/b/a Billing Concepts ("Billing Concepts"); and the LEC that issues
       the bill to the consumer. Billing Concepts uses the name "USBI" in
       billing for long distance services. The LEC is compensated by Billing
       Concepts for placing the charges on the consumers' bills; Billing
       Concepts is paid by Cheap2Dial to manage billing requests and payments
       between the LEC and Cheap2Dial; and Cheap2Dial ultimately receives the
       money collected from the consumers who pay the charges. Generally,
       carriers supply only a consumer's telephone number and the amount to
       be charged when directing the LEC to place the charge on the
       consumer's telephone bill. Proof of consumer authorization is not
       provided or required.

    5. Cheap2Dial markets its service exclusively on the Internet, using
       banners and webpages posted on various Internet sites. Online
       enrollment forms used to sign up customers allow for the input of the
       consumer's first name, last name, address, email address, home
       telephone number, and date of birth. Below the enrollment form is a
       summary of the terms of use, including a statement that the consumer
       will receive monthly recurring charges on his or her local telephone
       bill until the plan is cancelled.

    6. As part of its investigation, the Bureau examined more than 125
       complaints that had been filed by consumers about Cheap2Dial's
       service. These included ones that had been filed not only with the
       FCC, but also with state regulatory authorities, the Better Business
       Bureau, or with Cheap2Dial directly. All of the complainants contended
       that Cheap2Dial had charged them for service without their

    7. These complaints notwithstanding, Cheap2Dial claims that it has
       "strict policies and procedures for verifying all service requests
       prior to activating and billing any customer account." According to
       Cheap2Dial, it "performs a series of tests to verify the enrollment
       information provided by the potential customer." The Company states
       that these procedures include validating enrollment information
       through outside third-party database vendors."

    8. Cheap2Dial responded to consumer complaints with one of four different
       letters providing different explanations to consumers about how
       Cheap2Dial purportedly verified their enrollment. In one, the consumer
       is told that his or her first or last name was accurately matched with
       the address and telephone number provided. In the second, the consumer
       is told that his or her name was accurately matched with the address
       and telephone number provided and that the IP address used at sign-up
       passed Cheap2Dial's validation process and fell within the 100 mile
       radius of the address. The third letter says nothing about the address
       and telephone number matching, but notes that the IP address passed
       the Company's validation process and fell within the 100 mile radius
       of the enrollment address. This letter also provides the IP address
       used to sign up for service, and recommends that the complainant
       contact the Internet service provider of that address to determine who
       fraudulently used his or her telephone number during the sign-up
       process. The fourth letter says nothing about the address, telephone
       number, or IP address but provides the sign-up date and time and the
       IP address used during the sign-up, and recommends that the
       complainant contact the Internet service provider of that address to
       determine who fraudulently used the customer's telephone number during
       the sign-up process.

    9. Cheap2Dial states that following enrollment, it sends customers
       welcome messages via email and postal mail, using the email and postal
       addresses provided on the enrollment forms. The consumer is not
       required to confirm that the emails were received or to otherwise
       respond to the emails before Cheap2Dial begins charging for the


          A. Violation of Section 201(b) of the Act

   10. Section 201(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that "[a]ll
       charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in
       connection with [interstate or foreign] communication service [by wire
       or radio], shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge,
       practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable
       is hereby declared to be unlawful. . . ." The Commission has found
       that the inclusion of unauthorized charges and fees on consumers'
       telephone bills is an "unjust and unreasonable" practice under section

   11. We find that Cheap2Dial has willfully and repeatedly placed, or caused
       to be placed, charges on consumers' telephone bills for services the
       consumer did not request or authorize. As indicated above, each of the
       more than 125 consumer complaints that the Bureau reviewed - whether
       they were filed with the FCC, state regulatory authorities, the Better
       Business Bureau, or with Cheap2Dial directly - contends that
       Cheap2Dial charged consumers for service without their authorization.
       The complainants consistently state they did not sign up for
       Cheap2Dial's service, did not have any contact with Cheap2Dial prior
       to discovering the charges, and in most cases, do not even know the
       person whom Cheap2Dial alleges authorized the service. Moreover, many
       of the complainants observed that they had long distance (often
       unlimited) service with another carrier and therefore would have no
       need to pay for additional service with Cheap2Dial. Below are
       illustrative, not exhaustive, examples of some of the consumers who
       were charged by Cheap2Dial via their telephone bills:

   12. Complainant S. Lovelette.  Complainant Lovelette lives in St. Louis,
       Missouri. AT&T is her landline telephone service provider. In August
       of 2010, she noticed a charge from USBI on her AT&T bill. She learned
       that the USBI charge was for Cheap2Dial's services and that she had
       been charged each month by Cheap2Dial since July of 2008. Ms.
       Lovelette had assumed the charge was from the state or federal
       government. She contacted Cheap2Dial and was told she signed up online
       in 2008. Cheap2Dial sent her a copy of an online enrollment form. "The
       only valid information on the confirmation was my home telephone #!
       The name, address, email, and birth date were all false. In fact, they
       didn't match my personal information at all! I asked how they verify
       this information is accurate and that the person enrolling on-line is
       authorized to make changes for my account and I was informed that they
       have procedures in place and when the enrollment was performed it
       passed their security verification." Cheap2Dial offered to credit her
       for three months if she first mailed in the billing statements. Ms.
       Lovelette was told she could not request a credit of more than 6
       months. Cheap2Dial's own records showed that the IP address used to
       sign up for service was located in Festus, Missouri, not Saint Louis,
       Missouri where Ms. Lovelette resides. Cheap2Dial told Ms. Lovelette
       that the IP address used at signup passed its validation process and
       fell within the 100 mile radius of the enrollment address. Cheap2Dial
       recommended that Ms. Lovelette contact the Internet service provider
       to determine who fraudulently used her phone number during the sign-up
       process. Cheap2Dial charged Ms. Lovelette for 25 months of service
       even though she never authorized or used its service.

   13. Complainant A. Newman. Complainant Newman lives in Hilton, New York.
       His landline telephone service provider is Frontier. In November of
       2010, he noticed a charge on his Frontier bill from Cheap2Dial. He
       later discovered he had been charged by Cheap2Dial for $16.28 a month
       for over twelve months. When he contacted Cheap2Dial, the Company
       initially agreed to refund just six months of charges and only if Mr.
       Newman faxed the last six months of his phone bills. The name, home
       address, and email address on Cheap2Dial's enrollment form did not
       match Mr. Newman's personal information and the IP address used to
       sign up for service is located in Fairpoint, New York, not Hilton, New
       York. Only after Mr. Newman filed a complaint with the Better Business
       Bureau did Cheap2Dial refund $228.01.

   14. Complainant A. Butkevick. Complainant Butkevick's medical practice in
       Pearland, Texas has long distance service with AT&T. Mr. Butkevick
       discovered his business phone number had been charged by Cheap2Dial
       since August of 2008. Mr. Butkevick never signed up for service with
       Cheap2Dial. Cheap2Dial refused to refund any of the charges, despite
       the fact that its records showed another individual's name on the
       account. In addition, Billing Concepts' records revealed that the
       phone number belonged to Mr. Butkevick's medical practice, rather than
       to the person identified on Cheap2Dial's enrollment form. Cheap2Dial's
       verification procedures also showed that the IP address used to sign
       up for service was located in Mansfield, Texas. Nevertheless,
       Cheap2Dial charged him for 27 months for a service that Mr. Butkevick
       never authorized or used. After filing a complaint with the Public
       Utility of Texas, Mr. Butkevick finally received a refund of $435.54.

   15. Complainant B. Yeager. Complainant Yeager works for a radio
       broadcasting company in Overland Park, Kansas. The company has
       telephone service with Qwest. Ms. Yeager discovered that Cheap2Dial
       had placed charges on the company's Qwest phone bill for several
       months. When Ms. Yeager contacted Cheap2Dial and asked it to provide
       proof of consent, "they provided an [e]nrollment [i]nformation
       `confirmation email' that was entirely fraudulent." Cheap2Dial's
       records did not match the company's name, business address or email
       address. Ms. Yeager explained that the telephone line Cheap2Dial was
       billing was for a radio tower in the middle of a rural field and is
       "strictly for the use of monitoring the radio broadcast and therefore
       is NEVER answered by a person." Despite charging the company for five
       months of service, Cheap2Dial offered to refund just two months of
       charges. In its response to the complaint, Cheap2Dial told Ms. Yeager
       that the IP address used during the sign-up was located in Lexington,
       Nebraska, despite the fact that Ms. Yeager's company is in Kansas.

   16. Complainant Z. Schulman.  Complainant Schulman is 82 years old and
       lives in Cincinnati, Ohio. She has telephone service with Cincinnati
       Bell. When she discovered that she had been charged by Cheap2Dial
       through her Cincinnati Bell telephone bill since April of 2009, Ms.
       Schulman contacted Cheap2Dial to request a refund. Cheap2Dial told her
       she had signed up for service, even though the information on
       Cheap2Dial's enrollment form did not match that of Ms. Schulman. The
       name on the enrollment form was not hers, and the home address and
       email address did not belong to her. After several phone calls to
       Cheap2Dial, Ms. Schulman was instructed by a Cheap2Dial representative
       to fax in copies of her telephone bills. The representative suggested
       Ms. Schulman go directly to the Cincinnati Bell office to get the
       print-outs she needed. Ms. Schulman went to the main Cincinnati Bell
       office to retrieve copies of her telephone bills for April and May
       2009. Ms. Schulman made a second trip to the Cincinnati Bell office to
       obtain copies of her June, July, August and September 2009 bills.
       After Ms. Schulman faxed in copies of her telephone bills, Cheap2Dial
       initially agreed to refund six months of charges, despite having
       charged her without her authorization for 13 months. Not until Ms.
       Schulman hired an attorney to try to recoup her money did Cheap2Dial
       agree to issue a refund of $243.33.

   17. The complainants' contention that Cheap2Dial "crammed" charges for its
       dial-around long distance service on their bills is corroborated by
       the fact that, between March 2010 and February 2011, Cheap2Dial placed
       charges on over 141,000 monthly telephone bills, knowing that just 22
       consumers were using the service at any one time. The number of
       consumers Cheap2Dial billed per month during this period fluctuated
       from 18,571 to 7,885; however, just 22 consumers (or 0.1 percent) were
       recorded ever using the service - compelling evidence that few if any
       of the consumers being billed had actually ordered service or were
       aware that they were being charged for it.

   18. To the extent that it actually uses them, Cheap2Dial's validation and
       verification processes are clearly inadequate to confirm that the
       person who "enrolled" in one of its plans, i.e., the one whom
       Cheap2Dial will charge for service, actually authorized the service.
       As indicated, Cheap2Dial asserts that one of the ways it confirms
       customer authorization is to verify that the IP address used to sign
       up for service is within 100 miles of the telephone customer's billing
       address. On its face, this in no way verifies that the person being
       billed for a service actually ordered the service. In fact, in many
       cases, as indicated above, the name and address in Cheap2Dial's
       enrollment records do not match the name and address of the customer
       who was charged for service. Similarly, the email address used to sign
       up for service often does not belong to the customer who is billed for
       service. The only information that consistently belonged to the
       customer whom the Company charged was, in fact, his or her telephone
       number. Based on our review of the record, it appears that any
       validation procedure that Cheap2Dial actually performed simply
       verified the general existence of the telephone number and that the
       number was a working number-and in no way verified that an enrollee
       actually in any way intended to subscribe to Cheap2Dial's dial-around

   19. Cheap2Dial's claims that it "verifies" a service request by sending
       welcome messages via email to the email address identified on the form
       is likewise of no consequence. The process does not require any action
       on the part of the consumer to confirm either that the consumer
       received the email or that the consumer signed up for or agreed to be
       charged for Cheap2Dial's service. Indeed, many of the complainants
       assert they never received any emails or other communications from
       Cheap2Dial regarding its long distance service. This would not be
       surprising given that, as noted above, the email address in
       Cheap2Dial's records is generally not the consumer's. Similarly, the
       welcome message sent to the postal address provided on the enrollment
       form would not reach the consumer when that address does not belong to
       the billed customer. Even if a consumer did, in fact, receive this
       welcome material, it is possible, if not probable, that he or she
       might reasonably discard the material as "junk" mail or spam, given
       that the consumer did not create a relationship with, or even know of
       the existence of, Cheap2Dial. On these facts, the mere act of sending
       an email or mail without requiring a response from a consumer thus is
       not sufficient to "verify" that the consumer, in fact, ordered
       Cheap2Dial's service in the face of the consumer's contrary assertion.

   20. Cheap2Dial's success in what appears to be a constructively fraudulent
       enterprise seems to rely on the fact that individuals and businesses
       the Company enrolled in its service failed to notice the unauthorized
       charges in their multipage telephone bills and so simply proceeded to
       pay them, often unaware that that they contained charges from an
       entity other than their own telephone company. The charges were often
       listed on the last pages of the bill and/or did not contain clear
       descriptions of the services provided. It would be difficult for
       someone who had never heard of Cheap2Dial or "USBI" (the billing
       aggregator) to know that there were unauthorized charges from another
       company on his or her telephone bill.

   21. If and when consumers ever discovered Cheap2Dial's charges, the
       Company required them to expend significant time and effort to attempt
       to have charges removed from their bills. For example, in many cases
       we reviewed, Cheap2Dial made it difficult for consumers to obtain full
       refunds of unauthorized charges, and only offered consumers a partial
       refund. In other cases, refunds were not provided until after the
       consumer filed a complaint with a state or federal regulatory
       authority. For example, Cheap2Dial charged Complainant Lovelette for
       25 months. The Company provided no evidence that complainant
       authorized or used the service, yet when she contacted Cheap2Dial to
       have the charges removed, she was told the company would not credit
       the charges beyond six months. Only after Ms. Lovelette filed a
       complaint with the Missouri Attorney General's office was Ms.
       Lovelette given a full refund of the charges. Similarly, Cheap2Dial
       refused to issue a refund to Complainant Smith until she sent in
       copies of her phone bills and requested the refund in writing.
       Numerous other complainants say they were told by Cheap2Dial's
       customer service representatives that someone in the home had ordered
       the services and that the enrollment form was proof that the service
       was authorized. Many consumers were instructed to first review the
       enrollment "contract" and then submit their complaints in writing
       before any refund would be issued. Others were forced to make several
       calls to Cheap2Dial and to speak with several employees before any
       refund was issued. For example, Complainant Bowling explained:

   [First] they said and I quote[,] We don't refund money. And if you
   weren[']t smart enough to look at your bill that wasn't their fault. After
   another call or two they said they would refund me 6 months. If I could
   prove each bill date I was billed...So when I called USBI/Cheap2Dial back
   and said I now can prove bill dates and that I wanted the refund of
   $313.88[,] as we were speaking and I asked again[,] they hung up on me.

   22. Based on the record, we conclude that Cheap2Dial apparently has
       willfully and repeatedly placed, or caused to be placed, charges on
       complainants' telephone bills that they never authorized. The facts
       suggest that Cheap2Dial engaged in this conduct deliberately. To the
       extent it did not, we find that Cheap2Dial either knew, or reasonably
       should have known, through numerous customer inquiries and complaints
       that many of its customers had not authorized service and that the
       vast majority of them were not using its service - yet Cheap2Dial
       nevertheless proceeded to charge these consumers for months and
       sometimes years. Cheap2Dial's dismissive responses to the consumer
       complaints is further evidence that it apparently is deliberately
       billing consumers for services they did not authorize. Accordingly, we
       find that Cheap2Dial's cramming constitutes an unjust and unreasonable
       practice and demonstrates apparent willful and repeated violations of
       section 201(b) of the Act.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act

   23. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act states that any person who willfully or
       repeatedly fails 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 503(b)(2)(B) of the
       Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000
       for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a
       statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act by
       common carriers. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we
       consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
       including "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."  Although the forfeiture
       guidelines do not establish a forfeiture amount for unjust or
       unreasonable practices, such as the imposition of unauthorized charges
       on consumers' telephone bills, the guidelines do state that, ". . .
       any omission of a specific rule violation from the. . . [forfeiture
       guidelines]. . . should not signal that the Commission considers any
       unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant." The Commission
       retains the discretion to depart from the guidelines and issue
       forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture
       authority contained in section 503 of the Act.

   24. In Long Distance Direct, Inc. ("LDDI"), the Commission found that the
       "imposition of unauthorized charges on consumers' telephone bills is a
       practice which is unjust and unreasonable within the meaning of
       section 201(b) of the Act," and assessed a $40,000 penalty for each
       cramming violation investigated in that case. Consistent with LDDI, we
       find that each charge Cheap2Dial caused to be placed on a consumer's
       bill without the consumer's authorization constitutes an independent
       unjust and unreasonable practice, and thus a separate and distinct
       violation of section 201(b) of the Act. There appear to be thousands
       of such violations in this case for which the Commission is empowered
       to assess a penalty.

   25. Weighing the facts before us and taking into account the extent and
       gravity of Cheap2Dial's egregious conduct, as well as its culpability
       and information in the current record about its revenues, we find that
       a total forfeiture amount of $3,000,000 is appropriate under the
       specific circumstances of this case.  As noted above, Cheap2Dial
       placed unauthorized charges of at least $13.97 on more than 141,000
       telephone bills over a twelve-month period alone and therefore billed
       nearly $2,000,000 to consumers over that time period through its
       cramming operation. The forfeiture clearly must exceed this amount in
       order to serve as an adequate deterrent and reflect the apparently
       intentional nature of Cheap2Dial's conduct. We therefore propose a
       forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000. In the event Cheap2Dial
       continues to engage in conduct that apparently violates section
       201(b)'s prohibition against unjust and unreasonable practices, such
       apparent violations could result in future NALs proposing
       substantially greater forfeitures and revocation of Cheap2Dial's
       operating authority. Other third-party service providers are also on
       notice that practices such as those engaged in by Cheap2Dial are
       unjust and unreasonable, and that we may propose more significant
       forfeitures in the future as high as is necessary, within the range of
       our statutory authority, to ensure that such companies do not charge
       consumers for unauthorized services.


   26. We have determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC apparently violated
       section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further
       determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a
       forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000.


   27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is
       amount of $3,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section
       201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:

   28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of
       this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Cheap2Dial
       Telephone, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or
       SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of
       the proposed forfeiture.

   29. 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 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). Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC will
       also send electronic notification to on the date
       said payment is made. 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: with any questions
       regarding payment procedures.

   30. The written statement, if any, must be mailed both to: Marlene H.
       Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,
       SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau -
       Telecommunications Consumers Division; and to Richard A. Hindman,
       Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement
       Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
       Washington, DC 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in
       the caption. Documents sent by overnight mail (other than United
       States Postal Service Express Mail) must be addressed to: Marlene H.
       Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the
       Secretary, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Hand or
       messenger-delivered mail should be directed, without envelopes, to:
       Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
       Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554
       (deliveries accepted Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
       only). See for further instructions
       on FCC filing addresses.

   31. 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.

   32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
       Requested and First Class mail to Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC,
       Attention: Mitchell F. Brecher, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 2101 L Street,
       N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20037.


   Marlene H. Dortch

   Cheap2Dial's principal address is 4075 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg,
   Pennsylvania 17112. Barry Rynearson is the owner and is listed as
   Cheap2Dial's Chief Executive Officer. Accordingly, all references in this
   NAL  to "Cheap2Dial" also encompass Mr. Rynearson and all other principals
   and officers of this entity, as well as the corporate entity itself.
   Cheap2Dial's business operations are managed by Adept Results, Inc.
   ("Adept Results"). Mr. Rynearson has a 9.75% interest in Adept Results.
   The owners of Adept Results are associated with another telecommunications
   carrier, VoiceNet Telephone, LLC ("VoiceNet"), which is the subject of
   another enforcement action we take today. Mr. Rynearson is the Chief
   Financial Officer of Adept Results and is also the Chief Executive Officer
   of VoiceNet, which is owned by Cathy Burger-Gray. The President,
   Secretary, and Treasurer of Adept Results is Joshua Gray.

   47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   For example, Adept Results also markets cosmetics and other products, the
   charges for which are placed on consumers' telephone bills. See "BBB
   Issues Warning on Web Companies Linked to Adept Results," Nov. 11, 2009,

   See Letter from Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division Chief,
   Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission, to Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC (Sept. 23, 2010)
   ("LOI"). The Bureau issued a second LOI to Cheap2Dial on February 25,
   2011. See Letter from Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division Chief,
   Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission, to Mitchell F. Brecher, Counsel to Cheap2Dial
   Telephone, LLC (Feb. 25, 2011) ("Second LOI").

   See Letter from Mitchell F. Brecher, Counsel for Cheap2Dial Telephone,
   LLC, to Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC (Nov. 8, 2010) ("Response to
   LOI"). Cheap2Dial's response to the Second LOI was received on March 28,
   2011. See Letter from Mitchell F. Brecher, Counsel for Cheap2Dial
   Telephone, LLC, to Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division Chief,
   Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC (Mar. 28,
   2011) ("Response to Second LOI").

   See Response to LOI at 3-4. "Dial-around" long distance service allows a
   telephone subscriber to bypass (i.e., dial around) the subscriber's
   preselected long distance telephone carrier, if any, and instead use the
   dial-around carrier's long distance service for a particular phone call.
   For each phone call, the subscriber must use the dial-around carrier's
   number and, in some instances, enter a PIN to connect the call.

   See id. at 4. Cheap2Dial contends that it receives certain marketing and
   account management services from Adept Results. It appears that Adept
   Results, in fact, handles the vast majority of Cheap2Dial's business
   operations, including customer service, call center needs, banking and
   accounting, and legal services. The underlying carrier whose service
   Cheap2Dial resells is "TCS Communications Solutions, LLC." See id. at 6.

   Id. at Attachment 2.

   See Letters to FCC responding to consumer complaints.




   See id.

   47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   See Long Distance Direct, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3297, 3302, P: 14 (2000) ("LDDI
   Forfeiture Order") (finding that the company's practices of cramming
   membership and other unauthorized fees on consumer telephone bills was an
   unjust and unreasonable practice in connection with communication

   We note that Cheap2Dial provided only those complaints it received in
   writing or via email. It did not provide complaints Cheap2Dial may have
   received over the telephone.

   See, e.g., Complaint from D. Law.

   See Complaint from S. Lovelette.

   See Complaint from A. Newman.

   See Complaint from A. Butkevick.

   See Complaint from B. Yeager.

   See Complaint from Z. Schulman.

   See Response to Second LOI at Section II, Tab A and Tab B.


   See, e.g., Complaint from A. McDavid ("I never received a letter, email
   $25 Walmart gift card or any other correspondence from Cheap2Dial
   verifying that I ordered the service. The charge just appeared on my phone
   bill one month . . . My last name, address and phone number can be found
   in our local phone book. I would not call that verification! Except for
   the first letter of the first name on your so called `letter of
   authorization' the first name is not even close to mine. The email address
   is not mine nor is the birthday correct."); Complaint from D. Wolfe (Name
   and address on Cheap2Dial's enrollment form did not match the customer's.
   Having contacted Cheap2Dial about the unauthorized charges, Ms. Wolfe
   "asked [the customer service representative] if they didn't run some sort
   of computer check on applications to make sure the phone number and name
   matched. Her strange reply raised questions in my mind. She said, `Our
   data bases showed that it was a valid address in Waxhaw and a valid phone
   number in Waxhaw."); Complaint from T. Bowling ("They said on 11/26/2008
   JAMES COOPER submitted an application via the internet to request these
   services. I have a copy of this application. I don[']t know a JAMES COOPER
   nor in the 15 years I've lived here with this # has one ever been here.
   The only thing on the app. that matches anything to do with my home is my
   phone #."); Complaint from C. Jorasch ("They said they perform `extensive
   validation' on the sign up form but the information they collected was an
   unknown person with a different address, birthday, email, etc. from the
   phone number where it was charged.").

   See Letter to FCC responding to customer complaint.

   See, e.g., Complaint from R. Meade (on the application Cheap2Dial
   provided, "[t]he name was misspelled, the birth date was inaccurate, and
   the email address provided was not mine."); Complaint from J. Benedict
   ("When the consumer contacted USBI they stated they had proof he purchased
   these services. They sent the consumer a false email with all incorrect
   information."); Complaint from J. Treat ("I called Qwest the day I
   received the bill. They said I signed up for it on the internet. I do not
   have access to [e]-mail and haven't for the last 8 months").

   See Letter to FCC responding to consumer complaint.

   Indeed, we note that much of the identifying information Cheap2Dial
   requests of a person when signing up for its long distance service-name,
   address, email address, telephone number, and date of birth-can be
   obtained through the purchase of aggregated lists of consumers that are
   commercially sold or from free internet websites such as
   Nothing within Cheap2Dial's sign-up webpage prevents the individual who is
   inputting the data from using someone else's identifying information or
   otherwise falsifying that data. If the person signing up for the
   Cheap2Dial service inputs someone else's telephone number, the person
   associated with that telephone number will be billed by Cheap2Dial
   regardless of whether the other information in the application is correct.
   See, e.g., Complaint from V. Merryweather (person on authorization was
   Hooman Hoomanian; address was not Ms. Merryweather's); Complaint from N.
   Gulshad (person on authorization was Kuta Maue; address was not Mr.
   Gulshad's); Complaint from W. Lowery (person on authorization was Jaleesa
   Battle; address was not Ms. Lowery's); Complaint from J. Farley (person on
   authorization was Paco Suave; address was not Mr. Farley's); Complaint
   from K. Witte (person on authorization was Joe Barnes; address was not Mr.
   Witte's); Complaint from N. Craig (person on authorization was Katrina
   King; address was not Mr. Craig's); Complaint from K. Lalley (person on
   authorization was Anna Baker; address was not Ms. Lalley's); Complaint
   from T. Haley (person on authorization was Jen Stilwater; address was not
   Mr. Haley's); Complaint from O. Coronel (person on authorization was Jason
   Chen; address was not Mr. Coronel's); Complaint from B. Yeager (person on
   authorization was Oscar Lara; address was not Ms. Yeager's).

   A practice that "convey[s] insufficient information as to the company's
   identity, rates, practices, and range of services" may constitute a
   violation of section 201(b). See Telecommunications Research & Action
   Center & Consumer Action, 4 FCC Rcd 2157, 2159 P: 14 (Com.Car.Bur. 1989).

   See Complaint from S. Lovelette; see also Complaint from W. John.

   See, e.g., Complaint from K. Winslow ("[Cheap2Dial] advised me that I
   would have to request in writing a copy of the LOA for the initial charges
   to be returned to me and that it would take approximately 10
   days...Verizon advised me if I did NOT pay these charges that they would
   continue to bill me a late fee").

   See, e.g., Complaint from T. Haley ("Cheap2Dial charged my AT&T bill and
   will not take off the charge. They told me to go after the Jen Stilwater
   for ID fraud!!! There is no Jen Stilwater. I have called for three months,
   been put on hold for hours. AT&T said by FEDERAL LAW they have to let
   third party charges be billed and will not give credit.").

   See Complaint from T. Bowling.

   47 U.S.C. S:503(b)(1)(B). See also  47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(2).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B). See also  47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2). In 2008, the
   Commission amended section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
   1.80(b)(2), to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts in accordance with
   the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection
   Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S: 2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80
   of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) (adjusting the maximum
   statutory amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,300,000 to

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

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules
   to Incorporate Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17099, P:
   22 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303


   See Long Distance Direct, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 314, 333 P: 25 (1998).

   Id. at 337 P: 30.

   As noted in the text, see supra P: 17, Cheap2Dial apparently caused
   unauthorized charges to be placed on more than 141,000 bills dated between
   March 2010 and February 2011. More than 90,000 of these bills date from
   June 2010 - within one year of the date of the instant NAL - and thus
   remain actionable under the statute of limitations set forth in section
   503(b)(6)(B) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6)(B).

   The $3 million penalty we propose is equivalent to applying a $40,000
   penalty to 75 violations, but as indicated, see supra note 42, the record
   shows that Cheap2Dial's conduct involves a considerably higher number of
   violations during the actionable time period.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   (Continued from previous page)


   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-90


   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-90