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, DC 20554


                                         )                                 
                                                                           
     In the Matter of                    )   File No.: EB-TCD-12-00000420  
                                                                           
     LDC Telecommunications, Inc.        )   NAL/Acct. No.: 201232170010   
                                                                           
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture   )   FRN: 0004337556               
                                                                           
                                         )                                 


                  Notice of apparent liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: August 30, 2012 Released: August 30, 2012

   By the Commission: Commissioner Pai approving in part, dissenting in part
   and issuing a statement.

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find
       that LDC Telecommunications, Inc. (LDC or Company) apparently
       willfully and repeatedly violated Section 258 of the Communications
       Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), and Sections
       64.1120 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules. As discussed in detail
       below, we find that LDC has apparently changed the preferred carriers
       of 27 consumers without proper authorization, a practice commonly
       known as "slamming," and has apparently failed to respond to seven
       slamming complaints. Based upon our review of the facts and
       circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we propose a
       monetary forfeiture of one million, one hundred eight thousand dollars
       ($1,108,000) against LDC for the apparent violations.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) initiated an investigation of LDC
       after reviewing numerous complaints from consumers alleging they had
       been slammed by LDC or charged by LDC for service they did not
       authorize. Most complaints were filed with the Commission and
       processed through the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB).
       CGB generally notifies carriers of individual consumer slamming
       complaints by sending a copy of the complaint to the carrier and
       directing it to respond to the allegations and provide evidence of an
       authorized change in a subscriber's selection of a telecommunications
       service provider. After reviewing the carrier's response to the
       complaint, CGB then rules on whether the carrier violated the
       Commission's anti-slamming rules. CGB sent LDC 44 slamming complaints
       between January 2008 and March 2012. LDC failed to respond to all but
       five of the 44 complaints. With respect to the 39 complaints to which
       LDC failed to respond, CGB issued orders granting the complaints and
       finding that LDC's actions resulted in a "slam," i.e., unauthorized
       switch in the Complainants' telecommunications service providers. For
       the five complaints to which LDC did respond, CGB determined that LDC
       failed to provide evidence of an authorized carrier change and issued
       orders granting the complaints.

    3. As part of its investigation, the Enforcement Bureau sent LDC a letter
       of inquiry (LOI) on October 13, 2011, which ordered LDC to provide
       certain information and documents relating to potential violations of
       the Commission's carrier change rules. LDC did not respond.
       Accordingly, on January 18, 2012, the Bureau issued an NAL against LDC
       for violating a Bureau order. Nearly three months and numerous filings
       later, LDC ultimately responded to the Bureau's LOI.

   III. discussion

          A. Apparent Violations of Section 258 of the Act and Sections
             64.1120 and 64.1150 of the Commission's Rules

    4. Section 258 of the Act prohibits the practice of "slamming," the
       submission or execution of an unauthorized change in a subscriber's
       selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone
       toll service (the subscriber's "preferred carrier"). Section 258 of
       the Act makes it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to
       "submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider
       of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in
       accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall
       prescribe."

    5. In accordance with Section 258, Section 64.1120(a) of the Commission's
       rules provides that no carrier "shall submit a change on the behalf of
       a subscriber . . . prior to obtaining: (i) Authorization from the
       subscriber, and (ii) Verification of that authorization in accordance
       with the procedures prescribed in this section." Specifically, a
       carrier must: (1) obtain the subscriber's written or electronically
       signed authorization in a format that meets the requirements of
       Section 64.1130; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a
       toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming
       orders electronically; or (3) utilize an independent third party to
       verify the subscriber's order.

    6. For third party verification, the Commission's rules require that the
       verification method confirm the following: the identity of the
       subscriber; that the person on the call is authorized to make the
       carrier change; that the person on the call wants to make the change;
       the names of the carriers affected by the change; the telephone
       numbers to be switched; and the types of service involved. In
       addition, Section 64.1120(c)(3)(iii) of the Commission's rules
       prohibits the third party verification from including any "misleading
       description of the transaction . . . ." This rule specifically states
       that the third party verification must elicit, among other things,
       "confirmation that the person on the call understands that a carrier
       change, not an upgrade to existing service, bill consolidation, or any
       other misleading description of the transaction, is being authorized."
       Carriers must keep audio records of the verification for a minimum of
       two years.

    7. Each of the 27 consumers who filed the complaints that form the basis
       of this NAL contends that LDC changed their preferred carriers or
       charged them for service without authorization.

    8. In response to the Bureau's LOI, LDC provided three third party
       verification (TPV) recordings purportedly showing that those three
       complainants had authorized service with LDC. We have reviewed the
       three TPVs and find that LDC's verifier did not confirm that the
       consumer wanted to switch carriers and did not confirm the telephone
       number that the consumers wanted to switch as required by our rules;
       rather LDC's verifier simply told the consumers that they would be
       "receiving one bill from [their] local phone company[ies] being billed
       on behalf of LDC Telecom as [their] long distance billing service
       provider."

    9. The requirement to confirm that a consumer wishes to make a carrier
       change is crucial to ensure that there is no confusion or ambiguity
       about the fact that the consumer is changing carriers, particularly in
       the instant case where consumers contend they did not intend to change
       carriers at all. LDC's verifier stated that the call was being
       recorded "for accuracy and quality assurance" and suggested that LDC
       was going to be the complainants' "long distance billing service
       provider." These statements do not in any way alert consumers that
       they are agreeing to a carrier change and, in fact, suggest instead
       that LDC is simply providing a billing service. Therefore consumers
       are likely to be unaware that they will have a new long distance
       service provider until they receive their telephone bills.

   10. With respect to the other 24 consumers whose complaints form the basis
       of this NAL, LDC provided no verification tapes or other evidence of
       authorization to change their preferred carriers. Thus, we presume
       these 24 complaints to be unauthorized changes in consumers'
       telecommunications service providers.

   11. We also note that consumers who received bills with LDC charges and
       realized they had been slammed were further inconvenienced by the
       necessity to contact LDC to try and negotiate a refund and contact
       their previous carrier to have their services switched back. Most
       consumers complain of the poor customer service they received when
       they called LDC or LDC's billing aggregator, ILD Teleservices, Inc.,
       to cancel the service. Some complainants stated that LDC simply does
       not return their phone calls. For example, one complainant explained
       that he "[t]ried to contact LDC [but that] they have an `answering
       service' which either hangs up immediately or transfers call to some
       bogus number/company. No LDC personnel willing to take call or call
       back." Others complained that LDC would not provide adequate refunds
       and instructed them to file a complaint with the FCC. For example,
       according to one consumer: "I told [LDC] that we never authorized this
       and I wanted a full credit refunded back to me for the whole time they
       charged us. They told me that a supervisor would have to get back with
       me. I never heard back from the supervisor so I called back . . . .
       They informed me that a supervisor could only credit me with 50% on
       the last bill or I could just file a complaint with the FCC." The
       consumer harm could be substantial; one complainant stated that LDC
       charged him $259.51 in March 2012 and $371.14 in April 2012, but
       refused to issue any refunds and instead instructed him to file a
       complaint with the FCC or the Better Business Bureau.

   12. We conclude that LDC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
       Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules
       by submitting carrier change orders without proper authorization for
       each of the 27 consumers listed in the Appendix. We further find that
       LDC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 64.1150(d) of
       the Commission's rules by failing to respond to slamming complaints
       CGB sent to LDC. We therefore propose a forfeiture for these apparent
       willful and repeated violations.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount

   13. 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 by a common carrier, or each day of a continuing
       violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or
       failure to 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.

   14. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines currently establish a base
       forfeiture amount of $40,000 for violations of our rules and orders
       regarding unauthorized changes of preferred interexchange carriers.
       The Commission has warned carriers that it will take swift and
       decisive enforcement action, including the imposition of substantial
       monetary forfeitures, against any carrier found to have engaged in
       slamming. Applying the $40,000 base forfeiture amount to each of the
       27 unauthorized carrier changes results in a forfeiture amount of
       $1,080,000.

   15. In this case, LDC has also repeatedly failed to respond to slamming
       complaints CGB sent to the Company. Seven of these complaints are
       within the one-year statute of limitations and are therefore
       actionable. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules establishes a base
       forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission
       communication. Applying the $4,000 base forfeiture amount to each of
       the seven complaints results in a forfeiture of $28,000.

   16. While we consider LDC's conduct particularly egregious, as
       demonstrated by its failure to respond to the complaints that form the
       basis of this NAL, and would normally find a significant upward
       adjustment appropriate, we do not propose an upward adjustment in
       light of LDC's size and its apparent inability to pay a higher amount.
       Instead, we find that a proposed forfeiture amount of $1,108,000 is
       appropriate under the circumstances of this case. We believe a
       proposed $1,108,000 forfeiture amount will protect the interests of
       consumers and serve as an adequate deterrent. Carriers should,
       however, be on notice that the Commission considers violations such as
       the ones discussed herein to be serious and that future similar
       violations may receive significant upward adjustments.

   IV. CONCLUSION

   17. We have determined that LDC Telecommunications, Inc. has apparently
       willfully and repeatedly violated Section 258 of the Communications
       Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 64.1120 and 64.1150 of the
       Commission's rules.

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 LDC
       Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY
       FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of one million, one hundred eight
       thousand dollars ($1,108,000), for willful and repeated violations of
       Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
       S: 258, and Sections 64.1120 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, 47
       C.F.R. S:S: 64.1120 and 64.1150.

   19. 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, LDC
       Telecommunications, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed
       forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or
       cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   20. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
       wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number
       and FRN referenced above. LDC Telecommunications, Inc. shall send
       electronic notification of payment to Johnny Drake at
       Johnny.Drake@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made. Regardless of
       the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must
       be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account
       Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters
       "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Below are additional
       instructions you should follow based on the form of payment you
       select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101.

   Any request for full payment 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.
   If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please contact the
   Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by
   e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   21. The response, 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 www.fcc.gov/osec/guidelines.html for further instructions
       on FCC filing addresses.

   22. 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.

   23. 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 LDC Telecommunications, Inc.,
       Attention: Sean Connors and Richard Clark, 2451 McMullen Booth Road,
       Suite 200, Clearwater, Florida 33759.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch
   Secretary

                                    APPENDIX


     Complainant                     Commission File No., if   Date of Slam  
                                     Filed with FCC                          

     R. Tartaglio (Randolph's Fine   11-S3212284               8/31/11       
     Jewelry)                                                                

     S. MacPhail                     11-S3211346               9/1/11        

     J. Dye                          11-C00329991-1            9/6/11        

     C. Fry                          11-C00330687-1            9/8/11        

     R. Gittel                       11-C00330879              9/9/11        

     J. Hartman                      11-C00330862              9/9/11        

     D. Roberts                      11-C00331375              9/12/11       

     K. Pierce                       11-S3247574               9/13/11       

     N. Habecker                     11-C00332259              9/14/11       

     T. Cunningham                   11-S003228                9/17/11       

     R. Morton (Cox Roofing Co.)     11-S3251644               9/21/11       

     B. Roadarmel                    11-C00333876              9/21/11       

     J. Janda                        11-S3255020               10/4/11       

     D. Goggans                      12-S3308637               12/26/11      

     K. Ames                         12-S3332060               1/4/12        

     S. Saykali                                                1/17/12       

     R. Efird                        12-C00370314              2/13/12       

     P. Desler                                                 2/16/12       

     W. Wolf (AAA Concrete)          11-C00392934              3/3/12        

     S. Bodenhamer                                             3/29/12       

     L. Adams (Stewartstown          12-S3409098               4/15/12       
     Presbyterian Church)                                                    

     T. Rose                         12-S3435907               4/15/12       

     P. Dehlan (California Smog      12-C00390144              4/18/12       
     Repair, Inc.)                                                           

     M. Boyd (Heritage               12-S003392                4/23/12       
     Transmission & Motors)                                                  

     S. Boschken                                               4/27/12       

     B. Cox                          12-S3428519               5/15/12       

     M. Pryor                        12-C00397979              5/23/12       


                      STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI,
                    APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

   Re: LDC Telecommunications, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, File
   No. EB-TCD-12-00000420, NAL/Acct. No.: 201232170010, FRN: 0004337556,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture

   I support today's action against LDC Telecommunications, Inc., which
   apparently substituted itself as the long-distance service provider for
   (or "slammed," as it is more commonly known) at least 27 consumers without
   proper authorization. And I thank the Enforcement Bureau staff for the
   diligent investigative work that led to this order. When a company evades
   responding to Commission inquiries, consumers will be vindicated only if
   our staff remains vigilant in pursuing the alleged violator.

   There is one aspect of today's order where I diverge from my colleagues.
   In my view, the forfeiture amount proposed by the Commission is simply too
   low given the egregious nature of LDC's conduct. LDC failed to provide a
   single verification tape showing it had authorization to switch a
   consumer's long-distance service provider (as required under our rules)
   and provided no defense whatsoever with respect to 24 of the complaints at
   issue. Moreover, LDC's business appears to have been immensely profitable:
   Consumers who were the victims of LDC's slamming reported receiving
   monthly bills of $128.67, $189.13, $259.51, and $371.14 even though those
   same consumers' previous long-distance bills had been about $20. As
   mentioned above, LDC also simply ignored our inquiries, which prompted the
   Commission earlier this year to follow up with a Notice of Apparent
   Liability. Finally, LDC's treatment of consumers who complained to them
   was appalling. LDC staff did not return phone calls, hung up on callers,
   refused to take calls, and otherwise gave consumers the run-around. If a
   caller somehow managed to reach a supervisor, the response was apparently
   "File a complaint with the FCC." Thankfully, more than twenty-seven of
   those consumers took them up on the suggestion and did in fact file
   complaints with the Commission. It thus became our duty to respond
   appropriately. Part of that duty involves finding a violation of our
   rules; the other part requires fixing a forfeiture amount calibrated to
   protect consumers' interests and deter future violations.

   It is in carrying out that second aspect of our adjudicative duty where I
   cannot follow my colleagues' path. The Commission limits the amount of the
   proposed forfeiture here based upon "LDC's size and its apparent inability
   to pay a higher amount." The initial problem with this approach is that we
   don't have sufficient information to know if this is true. Moreover, the
   normal course-as recognized by the Commission just six paragraphs later-is
   that we take into account an apparent violator's (in)ability to pay a
   forfeiture after the apparent violator responds to the Notice of Apparent
   Liability with concrete evidence that it cannot pay. This makes sense: We
   can lower a proposed forfeiture that is too high, but leniency requires a
   factual foundation. And because the company is in the best (perhaps only)
   position to demonstrate its ability to pay, we need not guess at this
   point when the company may provide accurate information later, if and when
   it responds to the Notice. LDC did not take into account consumers'
   ability to pay when it sent expensive long-distance bills to those it had
   slammed, and I do not think that it is our role to make LDC's
   ability-to-pay argument for it at this stage of the proceeding.

   In sum, I agree with the Commission that LDC's conduct was "particularly
   egregious" and that it warrants a "significant upward adjustment" in the
   proposed forfeiture amount. This is not a run-of-the-mill case that
   warrants only a base forfeiture. Because I believe that the forfeiture
   amount should indeed be significantly higher, I respectfully dissent in
   part.

   This case was formerly assigned the file number EB-11-TC-105. In January
   2012, the Telecommunications Consumers Division assigned the case a new
   number.

   According to the Commission's records and publicly available information,
   LDC is a non-facilities based interexchange carrier with offices at 2451
   McMullen Booth Road, Suite 200, Clearwater, FL 33759. The Company's
   President is Sean Connors and the Chief Operating Officer is Richard
   Clark. LDC is authorized to provide facilities-based and resold
   international telecommunications services. See ITC-214-20080523-00238,
   Public Notice, "International Authorizations Granted: Section 214
   Applications (47 C.F.R. S: 63.18); Section 310(b)(4) Requests" (Jan. 2,
   2009).

   47 U.S.C. S: 258.

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1120 and 64.1150.

   In addition, the Bureau obtained slamming complaints from other sources
   such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Better Business Bureau
   (BBB).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1150(c), (d).

   Id. at 64.1150(d).

   The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed
   to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. See 47 C.F.R. S:
   64.1150(d).

   See LDC Telecommunications, Inc., Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change
   of Subscriber's Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 12472 (CGB
   2010); LDC Telecommunications, Inc., Complaint Regarding Unauthorized
   Change of Subscriber's Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 11478
   (CGB 2008); LDC Telecommunications, Inc., Complaint Regarding Unauthorized
   Change of Subscriber's Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 11337
   (CGB 2008); LDC Telecommunications, Inc., Complaint Regarding Unauthorized
   Change of Subscriber's Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10256
   (CGB 2008); LDC Telecommunications, Inc., Complaint Regarding Unauthorized
   Change of Subscriber's Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8486
   (CGB 2008).

   See Letter from Richard A. Hindman, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
   Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to LDC Telecommunications, Inc., Attn:
   Sean Connors (Oct. 13, 2011) (on file in EB-TCD-12-420) (LOI).

   See LDC Telecommunications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 300 (2012) (First LDC NAL) (proposing a $25,000
   forfeiture against LDC for failing to respond to the Bureau's LOI).

   See E-mail from Sean Connors, President of LDC, to Richard A. Hindman,
   Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Feb.
   3, 2011) (on file in EB-TCD-12-420) (LOI Response). LDC's response
   included a one page document in response to the LOI questions. On February
   8, 2012, LDC emailed supporting documents. See Emails from Sean Connors,
   President of LDC, to Erica McMahon, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Feb. 8, 2012, 10:42 and 10:46
   AM EST). On April 3, 2012, LDC supplemented its LOI Response. See Email
   from Richard Clark, Chief Operating Officer of LDC, to Erica McMahon,
   Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement
   Bureau (Apr. 3, 2012) (Supplemental LOI Response). On April 9, 2012, LDC
   provided additional documents required by the LOI. See Emails from Richard
   Clark, Chief Operating Officer of LDC, to Erica McMahon, Attorney Advisor,
   Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Apr. 9,
   2012, 11:37 AM, 1:52 PM, 1:57 PM EST) (Second Supplemental Response).

   47 U.S.C. S: 258(a).

   Id.

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120(a)(1)(i), (ii).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120(c).

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).

   Id.

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120(c)(3)(iv).

   Some complainants mischaracterize the potential violation as a "cram." The
   evidence before us, however, which includes copies of many complainants'
   telephone bills, shows that complainants' preferred carrier selections had
   been switched to LDC; therefore, the violation at issue is slamming, not
   cramming.

   See LOI supra note 10.

   See TPVs provided with Second Supplemental Response. LDC also provided a
   fourth TPV for a consumer whose complaint is outside the one-year statute
   of limitations. We note that the fact that LDC eventually provided these
   TPVs in response to the Bureau's LOI does not absolve it of its obligation
   to have responded timely to CGB's Notices of Informal Complaint.

   Id.

   We note that not all of the complaints cited in this NAL arise out of
   incidents that occurred within one year of the release date of this NAL.
   Although our proposed forfeiture amount is based solely on the complaints
   that are within the statute of limitations, all of the complaints
   discussed herein illustrate the egregious nature of LDC's conduct. See
   Sandhill Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability, 25 FCC Rcd 17762,
   17769 n.45 (Enf. Bur. 2010) (noting that Section 503(b)(6) does not bar
   the Commission from assessing whether a company's conduct prior to the
   statute of limitations period violated the Act and Commission rules and
   from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture
   amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period).

   The contact telephone number provided on the consumers' bills is for ILD
   Teleservices, Inc. (ILD). When consumers contacted ILD about the charges,
   ILD often referred them to LDC. See, e.g., Complaint from S. Comfort;
   Complaint from W. Gonzalez; Complaint from R. Morton. Apparently, LDC paid
   ILD to manage its billing requests to the LECs. LDC passed the consumer's
   telephone number to ILD, which in turn passed the number on to the LEC
   that provides the consumer`s landline telephone service. LDC's charges
   then began appearing on the customer's telephone bill. In recent months,
   it appears that LDC began using ILD to bill consumers directly without
   going through the LECs. See Complaint from Heritage Motors (attaching an
   invoice the company received from LDC).

   Complaint from J. Janda; see also Complaint from S. Avina ("I tried to
   contact [LDC] for two months but no response."); Complaint from C.
   Barnette ("When I [saw] charges on my AT&T bill from [LDC], I immediately
   called them and was told that they would credit back the charges and would
   close my account. Then the next month I [saw] new charges and no credit
   for the other charges . . . I called on 2/21 and left a message because no
   one ever answers. You have to leave a message and they will call you back.
   I didn't get a call back."); Complaint from T. Cunningham ("[LDC] has not
   contacted us about restitution. They will not return any phone calls or
   correspondence."); Complaint from V. Patterson ("I have tried to contact
   LDC [] since October, only a voice mail machine answers stating that all
   representatives are busy. We have called numerous times and attempted to
   contact them numerous times before filing a complaint.").

   Complaint from R. Morton. See also Complaint from T. Heller ("I called ILD
   Teleservices . . . I spoke to Rachel. She cancelled the account and said
   [ILD] would give me 20 percent credit on the charges. I was angry; I said
   no I wanted full credit because I didn't authorize the charges. So she
   gave me no credit. She wouldn't play the recording for me that she said
   she had with somebody giving authorization for the switch. She said I
   would have to file a complaint with the FCC to hear the recording.");
   Complaint from R. Tartaglio ("They (LDC Telecommunications) refused to
   give us any information about the supposed `authorization.' They would not
   comply with any information until an informal complaint is filed with the
   FCC.").

   Complaint from S. Boschken. In some cases, the rates LDC charged were
   significantly higher than those of the consumer's preferred carrier. See
   Complaint from H. Gleckman, who had unlimited long distance service for
   around $20 with Verizon, and was charged $128.67 by LDC in one month for
   long distance calls; Complaint from D. Goggans, who has unlimited long
   distance service with AT&T for $21 a month, and was charged $189.13 by LDC
   for long distance calls in one month.

   We previously released an NAL addressing LDC's apparent failure to respond
   to the Bureau's LOI. See First LDC NAL supra note 11. We do not address
   the issues raised in the First LDC NAL at this time.

   Under the authority of Section 217 of the Act, the Commission has held
   carriers responsible for the failures of their telemarketers and third
   party verification companies to obtain proper authorization and
   verification for changes made to consumers' primary carriers. LDC has
   failed to provide any evidence that it should not be held responsible for
   the actions of its third party verification company in the three cases
   where it produced verification tapes. See Long Distance Direct, Inc.,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3297, 3300, para. 9 (2000);
   47 U.S.C. S: 217.  The Commission has held that licensees and other
   Commission regulatees are responsible for the acts and omissions of their
   employees and independent contractors, and consistently refused to excuse
   licensees from forfeiture penalties where actions of employees or
   independent contractors have resulted in violations. See Eure Family
   Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861,
   21863-21864, para. 7 (2002) (citing American Paging, Inc. of Virginia,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10417, 10420, para. 11 (Wireless
   Bur., Enf. and Cons. Inf. Div. 1997) (quoting Triad Broadcasting Company,
   Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 96 FCC 2d 1235, 1244, para. 21
   (1984)).

   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); Amendment of
   Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima
   to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (adjusting the maximum
   statutory amounts from $130,000/$1,300,000 to $150,000/$1,500,000).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B) (the Commission has authority under this section
   of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty against a common carrier if the
   Commission determines that the carrier has "willfully or repeatedly"
   failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or with any rule,
   regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act); see also 47
   U.S.C. S: 503(b)(4)(A) (providing that the Commission must assess such
   penalties through the use of a written notice of apparent liability or
   notice of opportunity for hearing).

   Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC
   Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991).

   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 Rules to Incorporate the
   Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy
   Statement); recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4).

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17098-99, para. 22.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b).

   See, e.g., Brittan Communications International Corp., Order of
   Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 4852 (2000); Amer-I-Net Services Corp., Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000); All American
   Telephone Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 13
   FCC Rcd 15040 (1998); Silv Communication Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 5178 (2010).

   These seven complaints are a subset of the 27 total slamming violations.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80; see also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at
   17114.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

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

   All further communications with respect to this case should use the new
   file number.

   As today's order notes, LDC was largely unresponsive to Commission
   inquiries until three months after the Commission issued a Notice of
   Apparent Liability against LDC for failing to respond to our inquiries.
   See Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture at para. 3; LDC
   Telecommunications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27
   FCC Rcd 300 (2012).

   Notice of Apparently Liability for Forfeiture at paras. 8-10.

   Id. at para. 11 & notes 26-29.

   Id. at para. 16.

   Specifically, the Commission states that it "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." Id. at para. 22.

   Id. at para. 16.

   (. . . continued from previous page)

                                                            (continued . . .)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-97

   3

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-97