******************************************************** 
                      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.

*****************************************************************



Federal Communications Commission DA 16-497
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554 
In the Matter of
VEZA Telecom, Inc.
  )
  )
  )
  )
  
                
File No.:  EB-TCD-16-00021653
FRN:  0016898017
             
ADMONISHMENT ORDER
Adopted:  May 16, 2016                          Released:  May 16, 2016
By the Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We hereby admonish VEZA Telecom, Inc. (VEZA or Company) for failing to comply 
with a Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) subpoena to produce certain 
information and documents.  The document request was in connection with an Enforcement Bureau 
(Bureau) investigation into the Company’s compliance with the Communications Act (Act) and the 
Commission’s rules (Rules) regarding potential violations of Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act and
Section 64.1120 of the Rules regarding slamming and cramming. VEZA’s failure to respond properly to 
a Commission order exhibits contempt for the Commission’s authority and threatens to compromise the 
Commission’s ability to investigate violations of law.  In light of VEZA’s claim that it is no longer in 
business and that it has surrendered its International Section 214 authorization, however, we take this step 
of admonishing VEZA rather than imposing a forfeiture.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. VEZA is a non-facilities based interexchange carrier that was authorized to provide 
domestic and international long distance telecommunications service.
1
  When the Bureau issued the 
subpoena to VEZA on June 8, 2015, the Company had authorization under Section 214 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), to provide resold domestic and international 
telecommunications services.
2
  On July 6, 2015, VEZA filed an application with the Commission 
requesting authority to discontinue domestic telecommunications services.
3
  On August 13, 2015, VEZA 
notified the Commission that it was surrendering its International Section 214 authorization.
4
                                                     
1
VEZA’s address of record is 11205 Alpharetta Hwy, Suite E3, Roswell, Georgia 30076.   
2
See 47 U.S.C. § 214; International Authorizations Granted, Section 214 Applications (47 CFR § 63.18); Section 
310(b)(4) Requests, ITC-214-20070913-00380, Public Notice, DA 07-4194 (Oct. 11, 2007).  
3
See Section 63.71 Application of VEZA Telecom, Inc., WC Docket No. 15-177 (filed July 6, 2015), available at
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001091542 (VEZA Application to Discontinue Service).  
4
See Letter from Craig D. Dingwall, Counsel to VEZA Telecom, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC Office 
of the Secretary (Aug. 13, 2015) (VEZA Section 214 Letter); see also Letter from Craig D. Dingwall, Counsel to 
VEZA Telecom, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC Office of the Secretary (Sept. 8, 2015) (clarifying 
VEZA’s Aug. 13, 2015 letter). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-497
2
3. VEZA’s sole shareholder and President is Maria Alfieri.
5
  The Bureau initiated an 
investigation of VEZA based on complaints from consumers alleging that VEZA charged them for long 
distance service without their authorization.  The Bureau issued a subpoena to the Company seeking
information and documents about VEZA’s business, including its affiliations and practices related to the 
provision of telecommunications services.
6
  The subpoena also sought information and documents related 
to VEZA’s submission of carrier change requests and charges it placed on consumers’ telephone bills.  
The subpoena ordered the Company to produce consumer complaints and evidence that it had complied 
with the Commission’s verification procedures prior to switching consumers’ long distance service 
providers.
4. VEZA’s response to the subpoena was due July 8, 2015.  Through counsel, VEZA 
requested a 30-day extension of time to respond.  The Bureau granted this request and extended the 
response due date to August 10, 2015.
7
  On August 10, 2015, VEZA responded to the subpoena, objecting 
to most of the requests and otherwise providing no answer or incomplete answers to the inquiries.
8
  In 
addition, VEZA refused to provide a sworn statement attesting to the truth and accuracy of its responses.
9
  
The Bureau sent VEZA a letter on August 28, 2015, advising the Company that its response was 
insufficient and directing it to provide full and complete responses to the subpoena within seven days.
10
  
On September 4, 2015, VEZA submitted a supplemental response, in which it stated that the Company 
“no longer provides telecommunications service, it has permanently closed its office, and it no longer has 
access to the resources, funds, computers and records that would enable it to provide more documents and 
information in response to the subpoena.”
11
In this supplemental response, VEZA referred to its filings 
with the Commission seeking authority to discontinue service, but did not answer questions required by 
the subpoena. 
III. DISCUSSION
5. We find that VEZA violated a Commission order when it failed to fully respond to a 
Commission subpoena to produce certain information and documents in connection with the Bureau’s 
investigation of VEZA for potential violations of the Act and Rules related to slamming and cramming.
12
  
We also find that VEZA failed to submit a sworn statement with its response, attesting to the truth and 
accuracy of the information provided.
                                                     
5
See Letter from Neil S. Ende, Counsel to VEZA Telecom, Inc., to Selina Ayers, Enforcement Analyst, 
Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau at 2, 5 (Aug. 10, 2015) (on file in EB-TCD-
13-00007004) (Subpoena Response).
6
See Subpoena to VEZA Telecom, Inc., FCC File No. EB-TCD-13-00007004 (June 8, 2015) (on file in EB-TCD-
13-00007004) (Subpoena).
7
See E-mail from Mika Savir, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement 
Bureau, to Craig D. Dingwall, Counsel to VEZA Telecom, Inc. (July 1, 2015; 5:45 PM EST).
8
See Subpoena Response at 1-23.
9
See id. at 23.
10
See Letter from Richard A. Hindman, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement 
Bureau, to Maria Alfieri, President, VEZA Telecom, Inc., and Neil S. Ende, Counsel to VEZA Telecom, Inc. (Aug. 
28, 2015) (on file in EB-TCD-13-00007004) (Warning Letter).
11
See Letter from Neil S. Ende, Counsel to VEZA Telecom, Inc., to Selina Ayers, Enforcement Analyst, 
Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Sept. 4, 2015) (on file in EB-TCD-13-
00007004) (Supplemental Subpoena Response).
12
“Slamming” is the submission or execution of a preferred carrier change without proper authorization verified in 
compliance with the Commission’s verification rules.  See 47 U.S.C. § 258; 47 CFR § 64.1120 et seq.  “Cramming”
is the unjust and unreasonable practice of charging consumers on their telephone bill for services that they did not 
authorize.  See 47 U.S.C. § 201(b).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-497
3
6. Sections 218, 403, and 409(e) of the Act give the Commission broad power to compel 
carriers such as VEZA to provide information and documents in connection with Commission 
investigations into a carrier’s compliance with the Act and Rules.  Section 218 authorizes the 
Commission to “obtain from . . . carriers full and complete information necessary to enable the 
Commission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created.”
13
  Section 403 
states that “[t]he Commission shall have the same powers and authority to proceed with any inquiry . . . 
including the power to make and enforce any order or orders in the case, or relating to the matter or thing 
concerning which the inquiry is had.”
14
  Section 409(e) provides that the Commission “shall have the 
power to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, 
papers, schedules of charges, contracts, agreements, and documents relating to any matter under 
investigation.”
15
  Finally, the Rules authorize the Bureau to issue non-hearing related subpoenas for any 
records relevant to an investigation.
16
7. The subpoena directed to VEZA was a legal order of the Commission to produce the 
requested documents and information.
17
  VEZA failed to provide answers and documents for most of the 
requests in the subpoena.
18
  For example, VEZA refused to provide information about many of the matters 
pertaining to the Bureau’s investigation, including information about billing, credits, refunds, 
telemarketers, third party verifiers, dates of carrier change requests, and consumer complaints regarding 
unauthorized carrier changes.
19
  VEZA also failed to provide any evidence of authorized carrier changes 
for certain identified complainants.
20
  Moreover, VEZA objected to and otherwise refused to answer 
Inquiries and Document Request nos. 12-14, 16, 18-23, 26, 31-37, and 39-43.  In a letter notifying VEZA 
that its response was insufficient, the Bureau identified the specific questions that VEZA did not answer 
fully or did not answer at all.
21
  The Bureau also informed VEZA that the Company had failed to provide 
the required affidavit or declaration attesting to the truth and accuracy of the information provided.
22
   
8. We find that VEZA’s failure to provide the required information and documents and 
subsequent assertion that it was terminating business was an effort to thwart the Bureau’s investigation.  
At the time VEZA received the Bureau’s subpoena on June 12, 2015,
23
the Company was providing 
telecommunications services under the Commission’s authority.
24
  VEZA requested and was granted an
                                                     
13
Id. § 218.
14
Id. § 403. 
15
Id. § 409(e); see also id. § 154(i) (authorizing the Commission to “issue such orders, not inconsistent with this 
[Act], as may be necessary in the execution of its functions”).
16
47 CFR § 0.111(h).
17
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 218, 403, 409(e).  The subpoena was issued pursuant to delegated authority. See 47 U.S.C. § 
155(c)(1)-(3). The subpoena ordered VEZA to appear before the Enforcement Bureau on July 8, 2015, to give 
sworn testimony concerning the matters described in the subpoena.  As an alternative to appearing in person to 
provide testimony, VEZA was given the option to answer the inquiries in writing and provide the requested 
documents.  See Subpoena at 1.  VEZA elected to respond to the subpoena in writing.   
18
See Subpoena Response at 2–23.
19
See id. at 6-22.
20
Id. at 15.
21
SeeWarning Letter at 2.
22
Id.
23
See certified mail receipt showing that VEZA signed for the subpoena on June 12, 2015 (on file in EB-TCD-13-
00007004).
24
See Complaint filed by P. Araiza, attaching a telephone bill with VEZA Telecom, Inc., charges dated June 17, 
2015.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-497
4
extension of time to respond to the subpoena.  Shortly thereafter, but prior to responding to the subpoena, 
VEZA filed a notice of discontinuance of service with the Commission and then surrendered its 
authorization under Section 214 of the Act.
25
  At the time it filed its notice of discontinuance, VEZA 
knew it was being investigated by the Bureau for possible violations of the Act and Rules, however, it 
failed to alert the Bureau or provide the Bureau with a copy of the notice at that time.  Further, VEZA 
filed its Subpoena Response after filing its notice of discontinuance and failed to mention the 
discontinuance and its plans to terminate business in its response.  Not until after the Bureau warned 
VEZA that it considered the Company’s Response insufficient did VEZA claim it had terminated service 
and no longer had access to the “resources, funds, computers and records” necessary to enable it to 
respond more fully to the subpoena.
26
  VEZA did not provide any explanation for its closure and did not 
give any details as to why, so soon after receipt of the Bureau’s subpoena, it no longer had access to the 
resources, funds, computers, and records necessary to respond.   VEZA’s failure to retain such records 
constitutes a separate violation of the Commission’s order.
27
9. In addition, VEZA failed to properly attest to the truth of the partial responses that were 
submitted.  The subpoena provided:  “If you choose to answer the inquiries in writing, we direct you to 
support your written responses with an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, signed and dated 
by you, verifying the truth and accuracy of the information therein and that all of the information 
requested by this Subpoena in your possession, custody, control, or knowledge has been produced.”
28
VEZA elected to answer the inquiries in writing but refused to provide the requisite affidavit or 
declaration verifying the truth and accuracy of the information that was provided.  In blatant contradiction
to the plain language of the subpoena, VEZA gave as its reason for failing to attest to the truth of its
responses, stating that it “is unaware of any obligation to certify VEZA’s responses in the requested 
format.”
29
10. We disagree with VEZA that it was not obligated to provide a sworn statement with its 
responses.  When the Commission conducts an investigation, the subject of the investigation may be the 
exclusive source of information on which the Commission must ultimately rely to determine the subject’s 
compliance.  These types of verifications can be necessary to the Commission’s investigative function,
30
and the requirement of such verification here is within the category of acts and orders envisioned as 
necessary under Section 409(e) of the Act.
31
11. Based on the forgoing, we find that VEZA’s failure to provide all of the information and
documents sought, including the requisite sworn statement—especially after requesting and receiving an 
extension of time and receiving the Bureau’s notice that the initial response was insufficient—constitutes 
a violation of a Commission order. 
                                                     
25
VEZA Section 214 Letter at 1.
26
See Supplemental Subpoena Response at 1.  VEZA also objected to the subpoena requests “to the extent that they
are burdensome, moot and beyond the FCC’s jurisdiction.”  Id.
27
The subpoena directed VEZA to retain all responsive documents for twelve months from the date of the subpoena 
unless directed by the Enforcement Bureau in writing to retain the documents for some shorter period of time or 
until the Enforcement Bureau or Commission releases an item disposing of the issues of the investigation.  See 
Subpoena at 9. 
28
Subpoena at 1-2. 
29
Subpoena Response at 23.   
30
See SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7593, 7594, para. 10 n.29 (2002) (“Attestations can 
be necessary to attain the level of reliability that we require to enforce the Act and our orders and rules.”).
31
47 U.S.C. § 409(e) (“For purposes of this Act, the Commission shall have the power to require by subpoena the 
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, papers, schedules of charges, contacts, 
agreements, and documents relating to any matter under investigation.”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-497
5
IV. CONCLUSION
12. We have determined that VEZA violated a Commission order to produce certain 
information and documents, accompanied by a sworn statement, in connection with a Bureau 
investigation.  Although a monetary forfeiture is consistent with past precedent and warranted for this 
violation,
32
in light of VEZA’s claim that it has terminated business and surrendered its Section 214 
authorization, we admonish VEZA for failing to comply with a Commission order. 
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that VEZA Telecom, Inc. IS ADMONISHED for 
willfully violating a Commission order validly issued pursuant to delegated authority by the Enforcement 
Bureau in a subpoena served on VEZA Telecom, Inc. in connection with an investigation into VEZA 
Telecom, Inc.’s compliance with the Communications Act and Commission Rules.
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Admonishment Order shall be sent by 
first class and certified mail, return receipt requested, to VEZA Telecom, Inc.’s attorney, Neil S. Ende, 
Technology Law Group, 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440, Washington DC 20015.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Richard A. Hindman
Division Chief
Telecommunications Consumers Division
Enforcement Bureau
                                                     
32
See Net One International, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 264, 264-66, paras. 1-4 (EB 2014) (imposing 
$25,000 penalty for failure to respond fully to a letter of inquiry (LOI)), petition for reconsideration denied, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1021 (EB 2015); 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., d/b/a 
Locatecell.com, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 8193, 8196-97, para. 13 (2006), Forfeiture 
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 431 (2007) (imposing a forfeiture of $97,500 for the company’s failure to respond fully to an 
Enforcement Bureau subpoena) (1
st
Source Forfeiture Order); BigZoo.com Corp., Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
3954, 3954-55, paras. 1-4 (EB 2005) (imposing $20,000 penalty for failure to respond to an LOI).