Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
Click here for Commissioner Pai Statement
Click here for Commissioner O'Reilly Statement

******************************************************** 
                      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 AT&T Inc., Parent Company of New Cingular Wireless PCS,
   LLC and AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) File No.:
   EB-SED-13-00008891 NAL/Acct. No.: 201532100002 FRN: 0005193701




                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: January 29, 2015 Released: January 29, 2015

   By the Commission:  Commissioner Pai concurring and issuing a statement;
   Commissioner O'Rielly concurring in part, dissenting in part and issuing a
   statement.

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. We propose a $640,000 penalty against AT&T Inc. (AT&T) for apparently
       operating numerous wireless stations throughout the United States
       without authorization over a multiyear period and failing to provide
       required license modification notices to the Commission. Through its
       subsidiaries, AT&T operated numerous common carrier fixed
       point-to-point microwave stations at variance from the stations'
       authorizations for periods ranging from approximately three and a half
       years to five years. As a sophisticated Commission licensee, AT&T
       should have reviewed its newly acquired licenses in a timely manner to
       ensure that it was operating the stations within the terms of their
       authorizations. We take this action as part of our duty to prevent
       unauthorized radio operations from potentially interfering with
       authorized radio communications in the United States and to facilitate
       the efficient administration of the radio spectrum. AT&T's apparent
       violations continued for a number of years, including for a
       substantial time after it should have become aware of its unauthorized
       operations, thus warranting a significant penalty.

    2. Specifically, as detailed herein, AT&T apparently willfully and
       repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
       amended (Act),^ and Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 1.947(b) of the
       Commission's rules (Rules).^

   II. BACKGROUND

    3. In October 2011, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Wireless
       Bureau) referred to the Enforcement Bureau for investigation and
       possible enforcement action whether AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc.^
       was operating common carrier fixed point-to-point microwave station
       WQBI706 without authorization and whether it was operating microwave
       station WPSN556 on an unauthorized frequency.^ On October 13, 2011,
       AT&T filed a request for Special Temporary Authority (STA) with the
       Wireless Bureau to operate station WPSN556 on frequency 11622.5 MHz,^
       explaining that it discovered that it was not operating the station on
       its licensed frequency of 11132.5 MHz.^ In addition, AT&T filed a
       request for STA with the Wireless Bureau to operate station WQBI706,^
       stating that it learned that the license covering this station was
       canceled on January 25, 2010, and the station was operating on an
       unauthorized frequency under the station's previous license.^ AT&T
       subsequently filed amendments and modification applications regarding
       these stations that were ultimately granted by the Wireless Bureau.^

    4. The Enforcement Bureau sent a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to AT&T on May
       11, 2012,^ regarding possible violations associated with AT&T's
       operation of stations WQBI706 and WPSN556. AT&T responded on June 8,
       2012,^ and supplemented its response on June 29, 2012.^ Subsequently,
       the Enforcement Bureau and AT&T entered into settlement negotiations
       with respect to this investigation. In September 2013, AT&T disclosed
       verbally to Enforcement Bureau staff that AT&T discovered
       inconsistencies between the licensed parameters and the constructed
       facilities of a large number of common carrier fixed point-to-point
       microwave licenses that it acquired from 2009 through 2012 throughout
       the contiguous United States and Puerto Rico. The majority of these
       licenses were acquired by AT&T through its acquisition of Centennial
       Communications Corporation^ and its acquisition of certain licenses
       from Verizon Wireless, which Verizon Wireless sold as part of its
       acquisition of ALLTEL Corporation.^ AT&T reportedly discovered these
       issues in the course of a review it conducted to transition the
       licenses into its site and license compliance system. In light of this
       information, the Enforcement Bureau expanded its investigation to
       include the apparent unauthorized operations of these additional AT&T
       licenses.

    5. Almost a year after disclosing apparent unauthorized operations to
       Enforcement Bureau staff, AT&T reported that its review of the
       acquired licenses was nearly complete.^ According to AT&T, of the
       approximately 691 licenses reviewed that were acquired since 2009, 320
       did not require any corrective filings and 131 were canceled because
       they were no longer operating or needed.^ However, nine of the 131
       licenses were canceled after AT&T obtained new licenses because its
       frequency coordination study determined that operation of the acquired
       licenses posed a risk of interference.^ Of the remaining 240 licenses,
       AT&T explained that 190 required the filing of a minor modification
       application to bring the station into compliance, and 50 required the
       filing of a major modification application to bring the station into
       compliance.^ Thus, AT&T canceled seven of the nine licenses, as well
       as filed 14 major modification applications and six minor modification
       applications after January 30, 2014. Five major modification
       applications and two minor modification applications, however, have
       yet to be filed.

   III. DISCUSSION

    A. Operation at Variance from Authorizations

    6. Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules each
       prohibits the use or operation of any apparatus for the transmission
       of energy or communications or signals by radio except under, and in
       accordance with, a Commission-granted authorization.^ Section 1.947(a)
       of the Rules states that all "major modifications" to microwave
       stations require prior Commission approval.^ Section 1.929(d) of the
       Rules sets forth the types of modifications that are considered major,
       such as changes to antenna locations by more than 5 seconds in
       latitude or longitude, increases in transmit antenna height by more
       than 3 meters, changes in transmit antenna polarization, and changes
       in transmit antenna azimuth by greater than 1 degree.^

    7. AT&T acknowledges that it operated 59 of its common carrier fixed
       point-to-point microwave stations at variance from the stations'
       licenses for periods ranging from three and a half years to over four
       years.^ The 59 licenses include the 50 licenses that required major
       modification applications as well as the nine licenses that would have
       required the filing of major modification applications had the
       licenses not been canceled. Of these 59 stations, 14 were operated at
       variance from the stations' licenses until the requisite modification
       applications were filed after January 30, 2014; five are still
       operating at variance as the major modification application has yet to
       be filed; and seven were operated at variance from the stations'
       licenses until they were canceled after January 30, 2014. Accordingly,
       we find that AT&T apparently willfully^ and repeatedly^ operated 59 of
       its common carrier fixed point-to-point microwave stations at variance
       from their authorized parameters in violation of Section 301 of the
       Act and Sections 1.903(a) and 1.947(a) of the Rules.^

    B. Failure to Notify the Commission of Modifications

    8. Section 1.929(k) sets forth changes that are considered minor, such as
       changes to the licensee's contact person. In addition, any change not
       specifically listed as major is considered minor, such as but not
       limited to changes in transmit antenna location by 5 seconds or less
       in latitude or longitude or both, decreases or increases in transmit
       antenna height by 3 meters or less, and changes in antenna structure
       type.^ While minor modifications do not require prior Commission
       approval, Section 1.947(b) of the Rules does require notice to the
       Commission within 30 days of implementing the changes.^ AT&T admitted
       that it did not file timely notifications for 190 of its common
       carrier fixed point-to-point microwave licenses, eight of which were
       not timely filed within the past calendar year.^ Accordingly, we find
       that AT&T apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section
       1.947(b) of the Rules with regard to each of these licenses.^

    C. Proposed Forfeiture

    9. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or
       repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions
       of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of
       the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued
       by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture
       penalty.^ Based on the record before us, and as explained above,
       AT&T's apparent violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections
       1.903(a) and 1.947(a)-(b) of the Rules are both willful and repeated.^

   10. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes a forfeiture assessment
       against a common carrier up to $160,000 for each violation, or for
       each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $1,575,000 for
       a single act or failure to act.^ In determining the appropriate
       forfeiture amount, 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."^ Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture of
       $4,000 for unauthorized emissions, using an unauthorized frequency,
       and construction or operation at an unauthorized location, and a base
       forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
       information.^

   11. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act empowers the Commission only to assess
       forfeitures for violations that occurred within the year preceding the
       issuance of a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture.^ In that
       regard, the Enforcement Bureau's investigation determined that AT&T
       engaged in unauthorized operations at 26 of its common carrier fixed
       point-to-point microwave stations within the past year, in violation
       of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903(a) and 1.947(a) of the
       Rules.^ In addition, the investigation determined that AT&T failed to
       notify the Commission regarding minor modifications of eight of its
       stations within the past year, in violation of Section 1.947(b) of the
       Rules.^ In light of these findings, we propose assessing a base
       forfeiture of $4,000 for each of AT&T's 26 apparent unauthorized
       operation violations, resulting in a forfeiture of $104,000. We also
       propose assessing a base forfeiture of $3,000 for each of AT&T's eight
       apparent failures to notify the commission regarding minor
       modifications, resulting in an additional proposed forfeiture of
       $24,000. Thus, we propose an aggregate base forfeiture amount of
       $128,000 for AT&T's apparent violations within the past calendar year
       of our action today.

   12. Given the totality of the circumstances, and consistent with the
       Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a significant upward
       adjustment of the aggregate base forfeiture is warranted.  First, we
       are particularly concerned that AT&T's apparent unauthorized
       operations continued for an extended period of time.^ Second, the
       unauthorized operations involved a large number of stations.^ Of the
       59 licenses for which  AT&T filed, has yet to file, or canceled in
       lieu of filing major modification applications, AT&T operated 26 of
       the stations at variance from the stations' authorizations for more
       than four years,  26 stations for approximately four years, and seven
       stations for approximately three and a half years. Of the 21 licenses
       for which AT&T filed major modification applications or canceled since
       January 30, 2014, AT&T operated 19 at variance from the stations'
       authorizations for more than four years, and two stations operated for
       almost four years. Of the five stations for which AT&T has yet to file
       the major modification applications, all have been operating at
       variance for more than four and a half years.  Of the 190 licenses for
       which AT&T filed or has yet to file minor modification applications,
       AT&T operated three of the stations for more than five years,
       including two for which no modification applications have been filed,
       17 of the stations for more than four years, 81 stations for more than
       three years, and 89 stations for more than two years.

   13. Consistent with Section 301 of the Act, licensees who find themselves
       out of compliance with the licensing requirements should immediately
       cease unauthorized operation or seek temporary operating authority
       before continuing to operate.^  Although correction to the public
       record should be encouraged, we cannot condone such an untimely
       review, especially in light of the quantity of licenses at issue and
       the substantial period that passed before AT&T became aware of the
       violations.^ AT&T, a sophisticated Commission licensee with an
       extensive telecommunications portfolio, must conduct a more timely
       technical review of newly acquired licenses. Delay of up to five years
       to correct filings from acquisitions simply is not acceptable.^
       Moreover, we find that the egregiousness and quantity of the apparent
       violations -- 50 major modifications, nine canceled licenses, and 190
       minor modifications -- and the delay of several years -- three and a
       half to five years -- should be accounted for in setting the proposed
       forfeiture amount, resulting in an upward adjustment.^

   14. We also recognize that AT&T is a multi-billion dollar global
       enterprise.^ In this respect, the Commission has determined that large
       or highly profitable companies should expect the assessment of higher
       forfeitures for violations of the Act and the Rules.^ Thus, to ensure
       that the forfeiture liability serves as an effective deterrent and not
       simply a cost of doing business for AT&T, a significant upward
       adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted.

   15. We decline to downwardly adjust the proposed forfeiture. First, even
       if AT&T was unaware of the violations when it acquired the licenses
       and needed time to review the licenses for compliance, AT&T is a
       sophisticated licensee that was well aware of the fundamental
       licensing requirements imposed by Section 301 of the Act and Section
       1.903(a) of the Rules.^ Furthermore, regardless of whether AT&T is a
       sophisticated licensee, it is responsible for knowing the terms of its
       licenses and conforming to the requirements of the Rules.^ Second,
       notwithstanding AT&T's disclosure of the violations related to the
       acquired licenses during the pendency of the Commission's
       investigation, any initial transition issues related to AT&T's
       acquisition of the licenses do not explain the delay in filing the
       conforming applications.^ Third, regarding AT&T's disclosure and
       subsequent license review, "corrective measures implemented after
       [the] Commission has initiated an investigation . . . do not nullify
       or mitigate past violations."^ Based on all the evidence and the
       forfeiture adjustment factors, including the egregiousness based on
       the number of licenses involved, the duration of the violations, prior
       violations, and AT&T's ability to pay, we propose a total forfeiture
       of $640,000 for AT&T's apparent unauthorized operations and failure to
       provide required notices to the Commission.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
       and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Rules,^ AT&T Inc. is hereby
       NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
       six hundred forty thousand dollars ($640,000) for apparent willful and
       repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903(a) and
       1.947(a)-(b) of the Rules.^

   17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,^
       within thirty (30) calendar days after the release date of this Notice
       of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, AT&T Inc. SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   18. 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. AT&T Inc. shall send electronic notification
       of payment to Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, Paul Noone
       at Paul.Noone@fcc.gov, and Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@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 that AT&T
       Inc. should follow based on the form of payment it selects:

     * 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.

   19. 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, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C. 20554.^ If AT&T Inc. has 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.

   20. 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.^ The written statement must
       be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
       Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN:
       Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include
       the NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption. This statement also
       must be emailed to Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov and to
       Paul Noone at Paul.Noone@fcc.gov.

   21. 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.

   22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
       return receipt requested to Jacquelyne Flemming, Assistant Vice
       President - External Affairs/Regulatory, and Michael P. Goggin,
       General Attorney, AT&T Services, Inc., 1120 20^th Street, N.W., Suite
       1000, Washington, D.C. 20036.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

                       Secretary CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
                             COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

   Re: AT&T Inc., Parent Company of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC and AT&T
   Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc., File No. EB-SED-13-00008891

   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), the Commission
   proposes to fine AT&T $640,000 for alleged violations related to the
   operation of 34 fixed, point-to-point microwave stations. It appears that
   the company operated at least some of those stations at variance from
   their authorizations, so it is certainly appropriate to move forward with
   an NAL. Nonetheless, there's a troubling lack of transparency in today's
   item. As a result, I am only voting to concur.

   Some of the item's omissions are glaring. For example, the NAL itself does
   not identify the 34 stations at issue. Nor does it describe how those
   facilities allegedly failed to comply with our rules. These are pretty
   basic points that we should be able to include when we're proposing to
   fine a company over a half a million dollars after a multi-year
   investigation.

   The missing information is also critical to determining the appropriate
   base forfeiture. Indeed, depending on the ways in which the stations
   failed to comply with our rules, the base forfeitures mentioned in the
   item might actually be too low.

   Defining the alleged conduct at issue is also key to determining whether
   any upward or downward adjustments are appropriate. The NAL proposes to
   quintuple the base forfeiture amount, citing, among other things, the
   "egregiousness" of the conduct. But it's difficult to assess how egregious
   it was because critical information about the company's conduct remains
   unknown. And it's difficult to square that determination with the fact
   that the licensee voluntarily brought these issues to the FCC's attention
   in the course of bringing licenses it had acquired from third parties into
   its license management and compliance system. Therefore, I cannot conclude
   at this point that such a large upward adjustment is warranted.

   Given the item's omissions, my office reached out to Commission staff over
   two weeks ago. We asked repeatedly thereafter to see the missing data.
   Thankfully, my office was given some of this information yesterday. While
   it shows that the FCC still doesn't know the ways in which all 34 stations
   allegedly failed to comply with our rules, I am comfortable that there is
   an adequate factual basis for us to move forward with an NAL and give the
   licensee an opportunity to respond to the allegations. I look forward to
   working with my colleagues as the record develops.

                                  Statement of

                         Commissioner Michael O'Rielly

                     CoNCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART

   Re: AT&T Inc., Parent Company of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC and AT&T
   Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc., EB-SED-13-00008891

   For the Commission's enforcement process to retain credibility and actual
   functionality, such as it is designed to deter future incidents and justly
   penalize violators, the public must have faith that the calculations of
   forfeiture amounts are transparent and consistent. Although I have seen
   some improvements in determining base forfeitures, it is our
   implementation of upward and downward adjustments that continues to
   trouble me, because there has been a lack of hard justifications for the
   adjustment amounts. Today's Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) fines AT&T
   a base forfeiture of $128,000, which is then upwardly adjusted by 400
   percent to $640,000.

   First, it appears that AT&T did potentially violate some rules. Therefore,
   I can support the issuance of an NAL but only concur with the proposed
   base forfeiture amount. Specifically, the item does not contain sufficient
   information about the precise violations that are within the statute of
   limitations. The item neither describes the exact nature of the
   wrongdoing, nor does it disclose when each of these violations occurred
   and when they were rectified. Instead, it just states that 34 licenses
   were not in compliance with the Commission's rules within the last year.^
   My staff and I received supplemental information from the Enforcement
   Bureau to try to determine the extent of the violations. This seemed to
   suggest violations ranging from changes in site elevation and transmitter
   locations to failure to update contact information, but the information is
   incomplete. If this NAL proceeds to a forfeiture order, I would expect a
   more fulsome discussion of the actual violations.

   This brings me to my second point: it is hard to fathom how a 400 percent
   upward adjustment is warranted on so few facts. The Commission calculates
   this additional penalty by increasing the base forfeiture by 100 percent
   for each of the following: (1) "the egregiousness based on the number of
   licenses involved," (2) "the duration of the violation," (3) "prior
   violations," and (4) "AT&T's ability to pay." But, the NAL does not
   provide specific information to support the majority of these increases;
   except for the general discussion of possible violations associated with
   licenses acquired by AT&T from third parties between 2009 and 2012, many
   of which are outside the statute of limitations.

   I am left to conclude that a portion of the hefty upward adjustment may,
   in fact, be a penalty for these additional violations that do not fall
   within the statute of limitations period. There is Commission precedent
   that allows violations that occur outside the statute of limitations
   period to be used to measure the culpability of the licensee and inform
   the forfeiture amount. But there is no discussion of prior violations by
   AT&T in this document. I have to ask whether the violations referenced are
   related to a previous consent decree entered into by AT&T, which is not
   even mentioned in the item, or the alleged violations of which many are
   outside the statute of limitations. If the upward adjustment is based on
   "apparent" violations that are outside the statute of limitations, I would
   have deep concerns as the Commission did not verify or act upon these
   potential violations. Given the scope of the issue at hand, it seems
   comparable to a traffic cop issuing a speeding ticket and then trying to
   increase the size of the fine because the motorist admitted to speeding
   last week when no cops were around. Overall, this does not appear to be
   aligned with the spirit and purpose of a statute of limitations.

   If the Commission is attempting to signal that it intends to be aggressive
   on enforcement actions, it also needs to be right and just.

   Therefore, I concur in part and dissent in part.

   ^ This investigation was initiated under File No. EB-11-SE-107 and
   subsequently assigned File No. EB-SED-13-00008891. Any future
   correspondence with the Commission concerning this matter should reflect
   the new case number.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 301.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 1.903(a), 1.947(a)-(b).

   ^ The licenses at issue in the initial investigation were licensed to AT&T
   Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc. The investigation ultimately expanded to
   include licenses held by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. Both entities are
   indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of AT&T Inc. We use the term AT&T to
   refer to AT&T Inc., including these two wholly-owned subsidiaries.

   ^ Common carrier fixed point-to-point microwave service is defined as "[a]
   common carrier public radio service rendered on microwave frequencies by
   fixed and temporary fixed stations between points that lie within the
   United States or between point to its possessions or to points in Canada
   or Mexico." 47 C.F.R. S 101.3.

   ^ Commission records indicate that on October 7, 2011, the Wireless Bureau
   granted a verbal STA to allow AT&T to operate station WPSN556 on frequency
   11622.5MHz, with instructions to AT&T to submit a written request for STA
   on or before October 17, 2011.

   ^ See Universal Licensing System (ULS) File No. 0004911100 (Oct. 13,
   2011). The Wireless Bureau granted the STA on November 2, 2011, under call
   sign WQOK987, until April 30, 2012.

   ^ Commission records indicate that on October 7, 2011, the Wireless Bureau
   granted a verbal STA to allow AT&T to operate station WQBI706 on frequency
   11132.5 MHz, with instructions to AT&T to submit a written request for STA
   on or before October 17, 2011.

   ^ See ULS File No. 0004911088 (Oct. 13, 2011). The Wireless Bureau granted
   the STA on November 2, 2011, under call sign WQOK988, until April 30,
   2012.

   ^ On November 8, 2011, AT&T filed an amendment application for station
   WPSN556 which sought to correct the frequency on the path between WPSN556
   and Yeguado, Puerto Rico, and also sought to change the receive call sign
   for the Yeguado path to WPZL569, which was co-located with WQBI706 at the
   Yeguado site. See ULS File No. 0004782257 (Nov. 8, 2011). The Wireless
   Bureau granted this application on January 4, 2012. See Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau Site-By-Site Action, Public Notice, Report No.
   7444 (Jan. 11, 2012). On November 22, 2011, AT&T filed an application to
   modify station WPZL569 (which was co-located with station WQBI706 at
   Yeguado), by adding frequency 11132.5 MHz. See ULS File No. 0004964108.
   The Wireless Bureau granted this application on February 7, 2012. See
   Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-By-Site Action, Public Notice,
   Report No. 7535 (Feb. 15, 2012).

   ^ See Letter from John D. Poutasse, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Michael P. Goggin, General Attorney, AT&T
   Mobility LLC (May 11, 2012) (on file in EB-SED-13-00008891).

   ^ See Letter from William L. Roughton, Jr., General Attorney, AT&T
   Services, Inc., to Paul Noone, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (June 8, 2012) (on file in
   EB-SED-13-00008891); see also note 13.

   ^ See Letter from William L. Roughton, Jr., General Attorney, AT&T
   Services, Inc., to Paul Noone, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (June 29, 2012) (on file in
   EB-SED-13-00008891). AT&T requested confidential treatment regarding its
   LOI response and supplemental LOI response. The request for
   confidentiality remains pending. The analysis and text of this item relies
   on publicly available information.

   ^ See Applications of AT&T Inc. and Centennial Commc'ns Corp. for Consent
   to Transfer Control of Licenses, Authorizations, and Spectrum Leasing
   Arrangements, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 13915 (2009).

   ^ See Applications of Cellco P'ship d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Atlantis
   Holdings LLC for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses, Authorizations,
   and Spectrum Manager and De Facto Transfer Leasing Arrangements and
   Petition for Declaratory Ruling that the Transaction is Consistent with
   Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act, Memorandum Opinion and Order
   and Declaratory Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd 17444 (2008); Applications of AT&T Inc.
   and Cellco P'ship d/b/a Verizon Wireless for Consent to Transfer Control
   of Licenses and Authorizations and Modify a Spectrum Leasing Arrangement,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 8704 (2010).

   ^ See Letter from Jacquelyne Flemming, Assistant Vice President - External
   Affairs/Regulatory, AT&T Services, Inc., to John Poutasse, Division Chief,
   Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Aug. 5, 2014) (AT&T
   Letter) (on file in EB-SED-13-00008891).

   ^ Id.

   ^ Id. In subsequent settlement discussions with Enforcement Bureau staff,
   AT&T agreed to treat the nine cancellations as major modifications for
   purposes of the investigation. See Email from Jacquelyne Flemming,
   Assistant Vice President - External Affairs/Regulatory, AT&T Services,
   Inc., to Pamera Hairston, Assistant Division Chief; JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy
   Division Chief; and Paul Noone, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Sept. 5, 2014, 15:24 EDT) (on file in
   EB-SED-13-00008891).

   ^ AT&T originally indicated that 189 licenses required the filing of a
   minor modification and 51 required a major modification. AT&T Letter. On
   December 24, 2014, however, AT&T filed a minor modification application
   for one of the licenses (call sign WPSR702) that it originally indicated
   required a major modification. See id.; ULS File No. 0006595685 (Dec. 24,
   2014). The application is pending as of Jan. 28, 2015. By filing a minor
   rather than a major application filing, AT&T actually needed to file 190
   minor modification applications and 50 major modification applications.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 301; 47 C.F.R. S 1.903(a).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.947(a).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.929(d).

   ^ See AT&T Letter. AT&T originally acknowledged the operation of 60
   licenses (9 canceled and 51 that required major modification applications)
   as well as 189 additional licenses that required notification to the
   Commission for minor modifications were at variance with the licenses. Id.
   AT&T, however, filed a minor modification application in lieu of a major
   modification application for one of the pending licenses originally
   designated as major. See note 20 supra.

   ^ 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. 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful
   applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
   97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the
   term in the Section 503(b) context. See S. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991), recons. denied,
   7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern California).

   ^ Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
   pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
   `repeated,' . . . means the commission or omission of such act more than
   once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one
   day." 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(2); see Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, para. 9
   (2001); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 301; 47 C.F.R. SS 1.903(a), 1.947(a). We also find that,
   based on the STA requests and license modification applications filed for
   stations WPSN556 and WQBI706 as detailed supra para. 3, AT&T operated
   WQBI706 without authorization, in violation of Section 301 of the Act, and
   operated WPSN556 on an unauthorized frequency, in violation of Section 301
   of the Act and Sections 1.903(a) and 1.947(a) of the Rules. However, these
   violations occurred outside the applicable one-year statute of limitations
   under Section 503(b) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b). While the forfeiture
   is based on violations that occurred "within the past year," as discussed
   infra in paragraph 11, Section 503 of the Act does not bar the Commission
   from assessing whether AT&T's conduct prior to that time period apparently
   violated the Act and Rules or considering such conduct in determining the
   appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the
   one-year statutory period. Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1825, para. 14
   (2006), forfeiture ordered (Behringer NAL), Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd
   10451(2007) (forfeiture paid) (Behringer Forfeiture Order); Globcom Inc.
   d/b/a Globcom Global Commc'ns, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
   and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19903, para. 23 (2003), forfeiture ordered,
   Order of Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006). Earlier events may be used to
   "shed light on the true character of matters occurring within the
   limitations period." E. Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC
   2d 37, 38, para. 3 (1967) (quoting Local Lodge 1424 v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 411,
   416 (1960)).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.929(k).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.947(b).

   ^ See supra para. 5.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.947(b).

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

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 301; 47 C.F.R. SS 1.903(a). 1.947(a)-(b).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(2). These amounts
   reflect inflation adjustments to the forfeitures specified in Section
   503(b)(2)(B) of the Act ($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, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 10785 (Enf. Bur. 2013);
   see also  Inflation Adjustment of Monetary Penalties, 78 Fed. Reg.
   49,370-01 (2013) (setting Sept. 13, 2013, as the effective date for the
   increases).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8); The
   Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of
   the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12
   FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, para. 27 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement),
   recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at
   17099, para. 22 (noting that "[a]lthough we have adopted the base
   forfeiture amounts as guidelines to provide a measure of predictability to
   the forfeiture process, we retain our discretion to depart from the
   guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under our
   general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act").

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 301; 47 C.F.R. SS 1.903(a), 1.947(a). The unauthorized
   operations at the remaining 33 stations occurred more than one year ago.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.947(b). The failure to file timely minor modifications for
   the remaining 182 stations occurred more than one year ago.

   ^ See Behringer NAL, 21 FCC Rcd at 1827, para. 22.

   ^ See Sabrina Javani D/B/A EZ Business Loans, Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 7921, 7926, para. 9 (2012) (finding upward
   adjustments appropriate where a significant number of violations are
   present).

   ^ See, e.g., Union Oil Co. of Cal., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture 27 FCC Rcd 13806, 13810-11, paras. 10-11 (2012) (upward
   adjustment of the base forfeiture because of extended duration of the
   violation) (forfeiture paid) (Union Oil); Midessa Television Ltd. P'ship,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 14-159, para. 11 (Oct.
   14, 2014) (upward adjustment for the base forfeiture because of extended
   duration of the violation).

   ^ Although a large number of violations are not actionable due to the
   expiration of the statute of limitations period, the Commission has
   determined such violations may be relevant in determining adjustments to
   base forfeiture levels in setting the forfeiture amount. See Enserch
   Corp., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 13551, 13554, para. 11 (2000) (noting
   that the Commission can consider facts that occurred outside the statute
   of limitations period in assessing an appropriate forfeiture amount).

   ^ The Commission expects its licensees to timely file required forms and
   notifications. See e.g., Globalcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 3479, 3485-86, para. 17 (2010) (imposing a $100,000
   forfeiture for Globalcom's failure to make two required regulatory filings
   on time, where the filings were up to five months late), consent decree
   ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 29 FCC Rcd 2593 (2014)); ADMA Telecom,
   Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 838, 851,
   para. 31 (2009) (imposed a $150,000 forfeiture for ADMA's failure to make
   three required regulatory filings on time, where the filings were up to
   six months late), consent decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 26 FCC
   Rcd 4152 (2011).

   ^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12
   FCC Rcd at 17100-01; 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8) and note to paragraph (b)(8).

   ^  AT&T, Inc. reported revenue of approximately $128.8 billion for the
   fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2013. See AT&T Inc. 2013 Annual Report at 7,
   available at
   http://www.att.com/Investor/ATT_Annual/2013/downloads/ar2013_annual_report.pdf
   .

   ^ See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-17100, paras. 23-24
   (cautioning all entities and individuals that, independent from the
   uniform base forfeiture amounts, the Commission will take into account the
   violator's ability to pay in determining the amount of a forfeiture to
   guarantee that forfeitures issued against large or highly profitable
   entities are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business,
   and noting that such entities should expect the forfeiture amount set out
   in a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against them may in many
   cases be above, or even well above, the relevant base amount); GCI
   Commc'ns Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd
   12991, 12994, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 2013) (doubling base forfeiture based on
   company's ability to pay); Am. Movil, S.A.B. de C.V., Parent of Puerto
   Rico Tel. Co., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC
   Rcd 8672, 8676, para. 10 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (same). It is also
   well-established Commission policy to consider the revenues of a
   violator's parent company in determining the violator's ability to pay.
   See, e.g., SM Radio, Inc., Order on Review, 23 FCC Rcd 2429, 2433, para.
   12 (2008) (citations omitted); Tesla Exploration, Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 9808, 9811, para. 10 & n. 20 (2012);
   Union Oil, 27 FCC Rcd at 13810, para. 10.

   ^ See 47 U.S.C. S 301; 47 C.F.R. S 1.903(a); see also Union Oil, 27 FCC
   Rcd at 13811, para. 11 (noting that sophisticated licensees are "well
   aware" of fundamental licensing requirements).

   ^ Union Oil, 27 FCC Rcd at 13811, para. 11 (citing. e.g., Lakewood Broad.
   Serv., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 2d 437, 438, para. 6
   (1972)).

   ^ See Union Oil, 27 FCC Rcd at 13811, para. 11 (finding that initial
   transition issues associated with the acquisition of a license cannot
   excuse an extended period of unauthorized operation).

   ^ See, e.g., Behringer Forfeiture Order,  22 FCC Rcd at 10459, para. 19.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 301; 47 C.F.R. SS 1.903(a), 1.947(a)-(b).

   ^ 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).

   ^ The order states that AT&T engaged in unauthorized operations on 26
   point-to-point microwave licenses requiring major modification
   applications and failed to timely notify the Commission of eight minor
   modifications.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 15-12

   2

   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 15-12