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 Conexions, LLC d/b/a Conexion Wireless ) ) ) ) ) ) File
   No.: EB-IHD-13-00010793 NAL/Acct. No.: 201432080008 FRN: 0019770882




             NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER

   Adopted: November  1, 2013 Released: November 1, 2013

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (NAL),
       we continue our commitment to combatting waste, fraud, and abuse in
       the Lifeline program (Lifeline) by taking action and proposing
       monetary forfeitures against a company that apparently has ignored our
       rules and exploited a program dedicated to providing low-income
       Americans with basic telephone service, and also apparently has
       refused to comply with the Commission's investigatory requests.
       Specifically, we find that Conexions, LLC d/b/a/ Conexion Wireless
       (Conexions) apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections
       54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the Commission's rules^ by requesting
       and/or receiving support from the Lifeline program of the Universal
       Service Fund (USF or Fund) for ineligible subscriber lines for the
       months of June 2012 through December 2012, and February 2013. In
       addition, we find that Conexions apparently willfully and repeatedly
       failed to provide timely and complete responses to Commission requests
       for information.^ Based on our review of the facts and circumstances
       surrounding these apparent violations, we propose a monetary
       forfeiture in the amount of eighteen million, three hundred
       ninety-seven thousand, eight hundred and fourteen dollars
       ($18,397,814). Furthermore, we direct Conexions to submit, not later
       than thirty calendar days after the release of this NAL, full and
       complete responses to all outstanding requests from the Commission for
       information.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. Lifeline Service. Lifeline is part of the USF and helps qualifying
       consumers have the opportunities and security that phone service
       brings, including being able to connect to jobs, family members, and
       emergency services.^ Lifeline service is provided by Eligible
       Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) designated pursuant to the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).^ An ETC may seek and
       receive reimbursement from the USF for revenues it forgoes in
       providing the discounted services to eligible customers in accordance
       with the rules.^ Section 54.403(a) of the Commission's rules specifies
       that an ETC may receive $9.25 per month for each qualifying low-income
       consumer receiving Lifeline service,^ and up to an additional $25 per
       month if the qualifying low-income consumer resides on Tribal lands.^
       ETCs are required to pass these discounts along to eligible low-income
       consumers.^

    3. The Commission's Lifeline rules establish explicit requirements that
       ETCs must meet to receive federal Lifeline support.^ Section 54.407(a)
       of the rules requires that Lifeline support "shall be provided
       directly to an eligible telecommunications carrier, based on the
       number of actual qualifying low-income consumers it serves."^ Pursuant
       to Section 54.407(b) of the rules, an ETC may receive Lifeline support
       only for qualifying low-income consumers.^ A "qualifying low-income
       consumer" must meet the eligibility criteria set forth in Section
       54.409 of the rules, including the requirement that he or she "must
       not already be receiving a Lifeline service,"^ and must, pursuant to
       Section 54.410(d) of the rules, certify his/her eligibility to receive
       Lifeline service.^

    4. Section 54.410(a) of the Commission's rules requires further that ETCs
       have procedures in place "to ensure that their Lifeline subscribers
       are eligible to receive Lifeline services."^ As explained above, such
       eligibility requires that a consumer seeking Lifeline service may not
       already be receiving Lifeline service. This obligation therefore
       requires, among other steps, that an ETC search its own internal
       records to ensure that the ETC does not provide duplicate Lifeline
       service to any subscriber (an "intra-company duplicate").^

    5. The Commission's rules further prohibit an ETC from seeking
       reimbursement for providing Lifeline service to a subscriber unless
       the ETC has confirmed the subscriber's eligibility to receive Lifeline
       service.^ In accordance with Section 54.410, before an ETC may seek
       reimbursement, it must receive a certification of eligibility from the
       prospective subscriber that demonstrates that the subscriber meets the
       income-based and program-based eligibility criteria for receiving
       Lifeline service, and that the subscriber is not already receiving
       Lifeline service.^ As the foregoing discussion reveals, when an ETC
       seeks Lifeline service support reimbursement for a low-income consumer
       who already receives Lifeline service from that same ETC, that ETC has
       violated its obligation under the Commission's rules to confirm the
       subscriber's eligibility for Lifeline service.

    6. ETCs that provide qualifying low-income consumers with Lifeline
       discounts file an FCC Form 497 with the Universal Service
       Administrative Company (USAC), either quarterly or monthly, to request
       support that reimburses them for providing service at the discounted
       rates. An ETC's FCC Form 497 documents the number of qualifying
       low-income customers served and the total amount of Lifeline support
       claimed by the ETC during the specified time period. Section 54.407(d)
       provides that an ETC may receive reimbursement from the Fund, however,
       only if it certifies as part of its reimbursement request that it is
       in compliance with the Lifeline rules.^ An ETC may revise its Form 497
       data within 12 months after the data are submitted.^

    7. In addition to reviewing claims submitted by ETCs, USAC conducts
       in-depth data validations (IDVs) to further ensure compliance with the
       Lifeline rules.^ When a company is selected for an IDV, USAC will send
       the company a letter requesting subscriber data for a prior month or
       months.^ Once USAC receives the company's data, it analyzes the
       company's subscriber information to determine whether there are any
       duplicate subscribers and sends the company another letter with its
       initial results. USAC provides the company with an opportunity to
       submit a revised subscriber list to correct subscriber data or to
       remove subscribers that are no longer receiving service. If USAC
       determines that a low-income consumer is the recipient of multiple
       Lifeline benefits from that same ETC, it will send another letter to
       the ETC identifying the instances of intra-company duplicative
       support, seek a recovery, and notify the ETC that it must commence the
       deenrollment process for those duplicates.^

    8. Conexions. Conexions is a Tennessee corporation^ that provides prepaid
       wireless telephone services to Lifeline customers. Conexions has been
       designated as an ETC to provide wireless Lifeline service in
       Maryland,^ Arkansas,^ and West Virginia.^

    9. USAC conducted IDVs of the Lifeline support requested by Conexions for
       its Maryland, Arkansas and West Virginia subscribers for the months of
       June 2012 through December 2012 (2012 IDVs). USAC conducted an
       additional IDV of the Lifeline support requested by Conexions for its
       Arkansas subscribers for the month of February 2013 (February 2013
       IDV). Based on USAC's analysis, Conexions apparently had 3,489
       individual intra-company duplicate lines for which Conexions
       improperly sought Lifeline support reimbursement.^ According to USAC,
       Conexions requested $90,938 in overpayments from USAC over the months
       covered by the IDVs.^

   10. On May 14, 2013, the FCC Enforcement Bureau's Investigation and
       Hearings Division (Bureau) sent a letter of inquiry (LOI) to Conexions
       seeking documents and information, and requiring a response from
       Conexions by June 18, 2013.^ Conexions provided a response to this LOI
       on June 18, 2013.^ Upon reviewing Conexions's LOI Response, the Bureau
       concluded that it was deficient in a number of areas and also raised
       additional issues relevant to the Bureau's investigation. Accordingly,
       the Bureau directed Conexions to cure the LOI Response deficiencies
       and to respond to additional questions.^ Conexions committed to cure
       the deficiencies in its LOI Response and provide the required
       supplemental information by August 19, 2013.^

   11. Conexions did not submit the revised LOI Response and the required
       information by August 19, 2013, nor did Conexions seek an extension of
       the August 19, 2013 deadline. ^ Indeed, Conexions still has not cured
       the deficiencies in its LOI Response nor provided a response to the
       Bureau's Supplemental LOI.

   III. DISCUSSION

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

   13. Based on the record evidence developed in this investigation, we
       conclude that Conexions apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
       Sections 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410^ of the rules by concurrently
       requesting Lifeline support reimbursement for 3,489 individual
       intra-company duplicate lines. Conexions also apparently willfully and
       repeatedly failed to provide a timely and complete response to
       Commission requests for information. Based on the facts and
       circumstances before us, we therefore conclude that Conexions is
       apparently liable for forfeiture penalties totaling $18,397,814.

   IV. Proposed FORFEITURES

   14. For the violations at issue here, Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act
       authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture against a
       telecommunications carrier 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.^ 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,"^ as
       well as our forfeiture guidelines.^

   15. Lifeline Duplicates. If an ETC violates our rules and submits a
       request for Lifeline support that it knew or should have known
       includes ineligible subscribers, and thus requests and/or receives
       more reimbursement from the Fund than the amount to which it is
       properly entitled, it undermines the low-income support reimbursement
       mechanism. The Commission believes that the imposition of a
       significant forfeiture amount is a necessary response to Lifeline
       overcollection violations. Lifeline ETCs must expend the necessary
       company resources to ensure compliance with the Commission's Lifeline
       rules, especially the rules and procedures requiring that providers
       request and/or receive federal universal service support only for
       service provided to eligible consumers. Imposing a significant
       forfeiture on such rule violators should deter those service providers
       that fail to devote sufficient resources to ferreting out company
       practices resulting in overcollection violations. In addition, a
       significant forfeiture should achieve broader industry compliance with
       Lifeline rules that are critically important to the effective
       functioning of the Fund.

   16. To eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, maintain the integrity of the
       Fund, and protect the consumers who contribute to the Fund, the
       Commission has implemented a three-part forfeiture framework for
       Lifeline overcollection violations that imposes: (1) a base forfeiture
       of $20,000 for each instance in which an ETC files an FCC Form 497
       that includes ineligible subscribers in the line count, which is a
       violation of the certification requirement contained in Section
       54.407(d) of our rules;^ (2) a base forfeiture of $5,000 for each
       ineligible subscriber for whom the ETC requests and/or receives
       support from the Fund in violation of Sections 54.407, 54.409, and
       54.410 of our rules;^ and (3) an upward adjustment of the base
       forfeiture equal to three times the reimbursements requested and/or
       received by the ETC for ineligible subscribers.^

   17. Based on the facts and record before us, we have determined that
       Conexions has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections
       54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the rules.^ As documented above, over
       the course of eight months, and in connection with the submission of
       nineteen FCC Form 497s, Conexions requested Lifeline support
       reimbursement of $90,938 for customers who were receiving more than
       one Conexions Lifeline service. Accordingly, with respect to the first
       component of the structure articulated by the Commission, we propose a
       base forfeiture of $380,000 for the submission of the FCC Form 497s
       that included the ineligible intra-company duplicate subscribers in
       the line counts. With respect to the second component, we propose a
       base forfeiture of $17,445,000 based on the 3,489 individual
       intra-company duplicate lines for which Conexions requested and/or
       received compensation from the Fund. Finally, with respect to the
       third component, we propose an upward adjustment of $272,814, which is
       three times the amount of support Conexions requested and/or received
       for ineligible consumers. We therefore conclude that a total proposed
       forfeiture of $18,097,814 against Conexions for its apparent
       violations of the Commission's Lifeline rules is warranted.

   18. This NAL will in no way foreclose the Commission or any other
       governmental entity from taking additional enforcement action and
       imposing additional forfeitures for other violations of the Lifeline
       rules. Moreover, the Commission clarifies that the penalties that
       result from this NAL are separate from any amounts that an ETC may be
       required to refund to USAC in order to make the Fund whole.

   19. Failure to Respond. It is well established that a Commission
       licensee's failure to respond to an LOI from the Bureau constitutes a
       violation of a Commission order.^ Such violations do not always entail
       a party's total failure to respond; numerous decisions recognize that
       parties may violate Commission orders by providing incomplete or
       untimely responses to Bureau LOIs, or by failing to properly certify
       the accuracy of their responses.^

   20. As demonstrated above, Conexions has persisted in refusing to provide
       a complete response to the Bureau's LOI. It also has failed to provide
       any response to the Bureau's Supplemental LOI. The information and
       documents that Conexions failed to provide include documents, data,
       and information that are material to the Bureau's ability to conduct a
       thorough investigation. For example, in several instances, Conexions's
       LOI Response either failed to provide the data and information sought
       by the LOI or only provided partial responses (e.g., missing data
       months, missing account and reimbursement data, and non-responses to
       certain sub-parts of LOI queries). Conexions's failure to respond
       unduly taxed the Commission's resources by requiring Bureau staff to
       take exceptional measures in an effort to obtain the documents and
       information that Conexions should have provided. Conexions's conduct
       delayed and ultimately impeded the Bureau's investigation. Conexions's
       responsiveness and level of cooperation with this investigation thus
       fell well short of what we expect and require. Under the
       circumstances, Conexions's incomplete responses to the LOI, coupled
       with its utter failure to respond to the Supplemental LOI, constitute
       willful and repeated violations of a Commission order.^

   21. The rules also provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based
       upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E)
       of the Act^  and Section 1.80(b)(6) of the rules, which include "the
       nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation ... and
       the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
       pay, and such other matters as justice may require."^

   22. In view of the facts and circumstances apparent from the record, we
       find that Conexions's conduct warrants a substantial increase from the
       specified base forfeiture amount of $4,000 per violation for its
       failure to respond fully to a Commission inquiry and its failure to
       respond to further Commission inquiries (i.e., a total base forfeiture
       of $8,000).^ As discussed above, the record evidence demonstrates that
       Conexions's failure to cooperate with the Bureau was in many or all
       cases deliberate. Conexions willfully disregarded a deadline for
       submitting its response. Misconduct of this nature threatens to
       compromise the Commission's ability to effectively investigate
       possible violations of the Communications Act and the Commission's
       rules and to maintain the integrity of the Fund. Prompt and complete
       responses to Bureau LOIs are essential to the Commission's enforcement
       function. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act and its implementing
       regulations, the Commission may propose a forfeiture penalty of up to
       $150,000 for each violation.^ Given the circumstances of this case,
       including the intentional nature of the violation and its longstanding
       and continuing nature, and based on our precedent in other failure to
       respond cases, we find that Conexions is apparently liable for an
       additional forfeiture penalty of $300,000, the statutory maximum, for
       its failures to respond to Commission directives.^

   23. Accordingly, we find that Conexions is apparently liable for a total
       forfeiture of $18,397,814 for its willful or repeated violations of
       Sections 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the rules,^ and for its willful
       and repeated violations of a Commission order. We also direct
       Conexions to respond fully to the outstanding requests within thirty
       calendar days of the date of this NAL. Failure to do so may constitute
       an additional, continuing violation subjecting Conexions to future
       enforcement action, including additional forfeitures.

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and 1.80 of the rules,^ Conexions, LLC d/b/a/ Conexion Wireless
       (Conexions) is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
       FORFEITURE in the amount of eighteen million, three hundred
       ninety-seven thousand, eight hundred and fourteen dollars
       ($18,397,814) for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating
       Sections 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the rules,^ and for apparently
       willfully violating Enforcement Bureau directives to respond to
       Commission inquiries.^

   25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Conexions SHALL FULLY RESPOND, not later
       than thirty calendar days from the release date of this NAL, to all
       outstanding information requests.

   26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the rules,^
       within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of
       Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, Conexions SHALL PAY the
       full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
       statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeiture.

   27. 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. Conexions shall also send electronic
       notification of payment to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, at
       Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov and to Theodore C. Marcus at
       Theodore.Marcus@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 making full payment over time under an installment plan
   should be sent to:  Chief Financial Officer--Financial Operations, Federal
   Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, 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.

   28. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
       proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
       supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
       Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the rules,^ and may include any data
       or information demonstrating that the IDV results referenced in this
       NAL are materially erroneous or anomalous or that the forfeiture
       proposed is otherwise inappropriate.^ The written statement must be
       mailed to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, Chief, Investigations and Hearings
       Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445
       12^th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct.
       No. referenced in the caption. The written statement shall also be
       emailed to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, at Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov and to
       Theodore C. Marcus at Theodore.Marcus@fcc.gov.

   29. 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 principles (GAAP); or (3) some other reliable and objective
       documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
       financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
       identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
       documentation submitted.

   30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture and Order shall be sent by certified mail, return
       receipt requested, and first class mail to Thomas Biddix, Chief
       Operating Officer and Manager, Conexions, LLC d/b/a Conexion Wireless,
       100 N. Harbor City Blvd., Melbourne, FL 32935.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

   ^ This investigation, initiated under file no. EB-13-IH-0203, was
   subsequently assigned to file no. EB-IHD-13-00010793.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.

   ^ See, e.g., Google Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27
   FCC Rcd 4012, 4030, para. 12 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (Google) (proposing
   forfeiture for failure to timely comply with Bureau information and
   document requests); International Telecom Exchange, Inc., Order of
   Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 13691, 13693-94, paras. 8-9 (Enf. Bur. 2007)
   (imposing forfeiture on common carrier that responded eight months late to
   a Bureau letter of inquiry, and only then after repeated staff requests);
   see also LDC Telecomm., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
   and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 300, 301, para. 5 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (LDC) (proposing
   a forfeiture for failure to provide documents and information sought by
   Enforcement Bureau via letter of inquiry within specified time constitutes
   violation of a Commission order); 47 U.S.C. S 416(c).

   ^ Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Report and Order and
   Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656, 6662-67, paras.
   11-18 (2012) (Lifeline Reform Order); see also 47 C.F.R. SS 54.400-54.422.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 254(e) (providing that "only an eligible telecommunications
   carrier designated under section 214(e) of this title shall be eligible to
   receive specific Federal universal service support");  47 U.S.C. S 214(e)
   (prescribing the method by which carriers are designated as ETCs).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.403(a).

   ^ Lifeline provides a single discounted wireline or wireless phone service
   to each qualifying low-income consumer's household. See 47 C.F.R. S
   54.401; see also 47 C.F.R. S 54.400(h) (defining "household" as "any
   individual or group of individuals who are living together at the same
   address as one economic unit"); Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6760,
   para. 241 (noting that the costs of wireless handsets are not supported by
   the Lifeline program).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.403(a). Tribal lands include any federally recognized
   Indian tribe's reservation, pueblo, or colony, including former
   reservations in Oklahoma. See 47 C.F.R. S 54.400(e).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.403(a); Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6681,
   para. 53.

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. SS 54.400-54.422.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.407(a).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.407(b). In 2011, the Commission took action to address
   potential waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program by preventing
   duplicate payments for multiple Lifeline-supported services to the same
   individual. See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Report and
   Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9022-23, 9026, para. 1 (2011) (Lifeline Duplicates
   Order); see also Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Order, 28
   FCC Rcd 9057 (Wir. Comp. Bur. 2013); 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(a). Specifically,
   the Commission amended Sections 54.401 and 54.405 of the rules to codify
   the restriction that an eligible low-income consumer cannot receive more
   than one Lifeline-supported service at a time. See Lifeline Duplicates
   Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9026, para. 7. In the Lifeline Reform Order, this
   codified restriction was moved from Section 54.401(a) to revised Section
   54.409(c). See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6689, para. 74, n.192.
   The Commission reiterated this limitation in the Lifeline Reform Order.
   See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6689, para. 74; 47 C.F.R. S
   54.405.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.400(a), 54.409(c).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(d).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(a).

   ^ See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6691, para. 78. In June 2013,
   the Wireline Competition Bureau on delegated authority underscored these
   obligations, prohibiting ETCs from activating "a service that it
   represents to be Lifeline service, even on an interim basis while the
   consumer's application is being processed, before verifying eligibility,"
   including that a consumer's household does not already subscribe to
   Lifeline service. Lifeline and Link Up Modernization and Reform, Order, 28
   FCC Rcd 9057, 9059, para. 6 (Wir. Comp. Bur. 2013); see also 47 C.F.R.
   S54.410(a).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(b).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(b), (c); see also 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(d).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.407(d).

   ^ See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6788, para. 305. Subsequent
   revisions, however, do not vitiate violations of an ETC's duty to verify
   the eligibility of the subscribers that are reflected on any of its
   previously filed Form 497s.

   ^ See Lifeline Duplicates Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9026, para. 7.

   ^ See, e.g., Letter from Universal Service Administrative Company to
   Thomas Biddix, Conexions, LLC (Feb. 7, 2013) (on file in
   EB-IHD-13-00010793).

   ^ Although USAC recovers the duplicative support payments for the month at
   issue in the IDV examination (generally a single month), it does not at
   present always seek to recover the duplicative support that the ETC may
   have received for the same duplicates for the preceding and following
   months.  We therefore direct USAC, when it determines that an ETC has
   sought support from the Fund for an intra-company duplicate, to require
   the ETC to report to USAC (a) the month in which the ETC began requesting
   and/or receiving duplicative support for each such subscriber, and (b) the
   month the ETC stopped requesting and/or receiving duplicative support for
   each such subscriber.  We further require that, after receiving such
   information, USAC shall recover from the ETC all of the duplicative
   support it has received for such subscribers.

   ^ See Tennessee Secretary of State, Division of Business Services,
   Conexions Certificate of Existence, Control No. 000541669, available at
   https://tnbear.tn.gov/ECommerce/CertOfExistence.aspx?CN=044063245212023206055197171031249222028020002099.

   ^ See Maryland Public Service Commission, Letter Order #29, ML# 128985,
   TE-10421 (dated March 30, 2011).

   ^ See Arkansas Public Service Commission, Docket No. 10-099-U, Order No. 3
   (dated March 8, 2011), available at
   http://www.apscservices.info/pdf/10/10-099-u_6_1.pdf.

   ^ See Public Service Commission of West Virginia, Recommended Decision
   (dated July 17, 2011), available at
   http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/orders/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityID=325971&Source=Docket.

   ^ See Letter from Universal Service Administrative Company to Thomas
   Biddix, Conexions, LLC (Feb. 7, 2013). An "intra-company duplicate line"
   is any line for which Conexions sought and/or received reimbursement in
   violation of the Commission's one line per household rule. See 47 C.F.R. S
   54.409(c). For the purposes of applying the second prong of our three-part
   forfeiture framework (a base forfeiture of $5,000 per duplicate), given
   the unique circumstances presented by Lifeline intra-company duplicate
   cases involving multiple months of duplicate service, we have counted each
   intra-company duplicate line once, regardless of the number of months in
   which Conexions sought and/or received reimbursement for that line. We
   account for the duration of each intra-company duplicate line (i.e., the
   number of months that Conexions sought compensation for each intra-company
   duplicate line) in the first and third prongs of our forfeiture
   calculation. See infra paras. 16-17.

   ^ See Letter from Universal Service Administrative Company to Thomas
   Biddix, Conexions, LLC (Feb. 7, 2013).

   ^ See Letter from Pamela S. Kane, Deputy Chief, Investigations and
   Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Thomas Biddix, Conexions,
   LLC (May 14, 2013) (on file in EB-IHD-13-00010793).

   ^ See Letter from Thomas Biddix to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (June
   18, 2013) (LOI Response) (on file in EB-IHD-13-00010793).

   ^ See e-mail from Theodore C. Marcus, Investigations & Hearings Division,
   FCC Enforcement Bureau, to L. Charles Keller, Counsel for Conexions, LLC
   (July 11, 2013) (Supplemental LOI) (on file in EB-IHD-13-00010793).

   ^ See e-mail from L. Charles Keller to Theodore C. Marcus, Investigations
   & Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (July 18, 2013) (on file in
   EB-IHD-13-00010793). The parties set the deadline for August 17, 2013, but
   because that date fell on a Saturday, the official deadline for production
   was Monday, August 19, 2013, pursuant to Section 1.4 of the Commission's
   rules. 47 C.F.R. S 1.4.

   ^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1).

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

   ^ H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982) ("This provision
   [inserted in Section 312] defines the terms `willful' and `repeated' for
   purposes of section 312, and for any other relevant section of the act
   (e.g., Section 503) . . . . As defined[,] . . . `willful' means that the
   licensee knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of whether
   there was an intent to violate the law. `Repeated' means more than once,
   or where the act is continuous, for more than one day. Whether an act is
   considered to be `continuous' would depend upon the circumstances in each
   case. The definitions are intended primarily to clarify the language in
   Sections 312 and 503, and are consistent with the Commission's application
   of those terms . . . .").

   ^ See, e.g., So. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd
   4387, 4388 (1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern
   California Broadcasting).

   ^ See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, para. 10 (2001) (Callais
   Cablevision) (proposing a forfeiture for, inter alia, a cable television
   operator's repeated signal leakage).

   ^ Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5; Callais
   Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 136, para. 9.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f).

   ^ See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591, para. 4 (2002) (SBC).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410; see also supra paras. 3-6
   (discussing these rules and observing that when an ETC seeks Lifeline
   service support reimbursement for a low-income consumer who already
   receives Lifeline service from that ETC, that ETC has failed in its
   obligation to confirm the subscriber's eligibility for Lifeline service in
   violation of the rules).

   ^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(2). These amounts
   reflect inflation adjustments to the forfeitures specified in Section
   503(b)(2)(B) ($100,000 per violation or per day of a continuing violation
   and $1,000,000 per any single act or failure to act). The Federal Civil
   Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-410, 104 Stat.
   890, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L.
   No. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA), requires the Commission to
   adjust its forfeiture penalties periodically for inflation. See 28 U.S.C.
   S 2461 note (4). The Commission most recently adjusted its penalties to
   account for inflation in 2013. See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the
   Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect
   Inflation, DA 13-1615, 2013 WL 3963800 (Enf. Bur. 2013); see also
   Inflation Adjustment of Monetary Penalties, 78 Fed. Reg. 49,370-01 (Aug.
   14, 2013) (setting Sept. 13, 2013, as the effective date for the
   increases). However, because the DCIA specifies that any inflationary
   adjustment "shall apply only to violations which occur after the date the
   increase takes effect," we apply the forfeiture penalties in effect at the
   time the violation took place. 28 U.S.C. S 2461 note (6). Here, because
   the violations at issue occurred before September 13, 2013, the applicable
   maximum penalties are based on the Commission's previous inflation
   adjustment that became effective on September 2, 2008. See Inflation
   Adjustment of Maximum Forfeiture Penalties, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,663, 44,664
   (July 31, 2008).

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

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8); Note to Paragraph (b)(8): Guidelines for
   Assessing Forfeitures.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.407(d).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410. See Easy Tel. Servs. d/b/a Easy
   Wireless, File No. EB-IHD-13-00010590, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, FCC 13-129, at 5-7, paras. 13-18 (Sept. 30, 2013) (Easy
   Wireless).

   ^ See Easy Wireless, FCC 13-129, at 5-7, paras. 13-18.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.

   ^ See, e.g., Google, 27 FCC Rcd at 4030, para. 42 ("It is well established
   that a Commission licensee's failure to respond to an LOI from the Bureau
   violates a Commission order."); Carrera Commc'ns, LP, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13307, 13316, para. 22
   (2005) (Carrera) ("Carrera's willful and repeated failures to respond to
   the Bureau's LOIs constitute apparent violations of Commission orders."),
   forfeiture issued, Order of Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 9585 (2007); SBC, 17
   FCC Rcd at 7597-98, paras. 19-20  (explaining that the Bureau's LOI to a
   common carrier, which included a directive to provide a sworn statement
   verifying the carrier's response to the LOI, was a Commission order that
   the carrier was not permitted to ignore); LDC, 27 FCC Rcd at 301, para. 5
   (holding that "[t]he Bureau's LOI directed to LDC was a legal order of the
   Commission requiring LDC to produce the requested documents and
   information," and that "LDC's failure to provide the documents and
   information sought within the time and manner specified constitute[d] a
   violation of a Commission order"); Milton Goodman, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 18119, 18121-22, paras. 4-6 (Enf.
   Bur. 2004) (proposing a $10,000 forfeiture based on an auction applicant's
   failure to respond to a Bureau LOI), cancelled on grounds of extreme
   financial hardship, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 658 (Enf.
   Bur. 2005); see also 47 U.S.C. S 416(c).

   ^ See, e.g., Carrera, 20 FCC Rcd at 13319, para. 31 (proposing an $8,000
   forfeiture penalty against a company not represented by counsel that filed
   an untimely and incomplete response to a Bureau LOI); SBC, 17 FCC Rcd at
   7589-91, 7600, paras. 2-3, 28 (holding that a common carrier's deliberate
   failure to provide a sworn statement verifying its LOI response until
   weeks after the Bureau had directed the carrier to respond warranted a
   $100,000 forfeiture penalty); Digital Antenna, Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7600, 7600-02, paras. 3, 5,
   7 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (Digital Antenna) (holding that a manufacturer of
   cellular and PCS boosters was apparently liable for violation of a
   Commission order when it failed to provide complete responses to Bureau
   LOIs, including by failing to submit the required sworn statements); Int'l
   Telecom Exch., Order of Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 13691, 13693-94, paras. 8-9
   (Enf. Bur. 2007) (ITE)  (imposing a forfeiture penalty against a common
   carrier that responded to the Bureau's LOI eight months late and only
   after repeated requests from staff).

   ^ See, e.g., Carrera, 20 FCC Rcd at 13319, para. 31; SBC, 17 FCC Rcd at
   7599-600, paras. 25-28; Digital Antenna, 23 FCC Rcd at 7600-02, paras. 3,
   7; see also 47 U.S.C. S 416(c).

   ^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8); Note to Paragraph (b)(8); Guidelines for
   Assessing Forfeitures.

   ^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b).

   ^ See, e.g., SBC, 17 FCC Rcd at 7600, para. 28 (affirming Enforcement
   Bureau's proposal of $100,000 forfeiture).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410; see also supra paras. 3-6.

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

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.

   ^ See supra note 50 and accompanying text.

   ^ 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.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).

   ^ For example, the written statement could include data showing that the
   months examined in the IDVs were outliers or otherwise not representative.

   (Continued from previous page)

                                                               (continued...)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-145

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-145