******************************************************** 
                      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  FCC 16-44 
 
 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
  
 
In the Matter of 
 
Total Call Mobile, Inc. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
File No.:  EB-IHD-14-00017650 
NAL/Acct. No.:  201632080004 
 
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER 
 
Adopted:  April 7, 2016 Released:  April 7, 2016 
 
By the Commission:  Commissioner Clyburn approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a 
statement; Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing separate 
statements. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Heading Paragraph # 
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 7 
A. Legal Framework ............................................................................................................................. 7 
A. Relevant Entities ............................................................................................................................ 12 
1. Total Call Mobile, Inc. (TCM) ................................................................................................ 12 
2. CGM, LLC .............................................................................................................................. 15 
III. THE COMMISSION’S INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................ 17 
A. TCM Apparently Enrolled Duplicate and Ineligible Lifeline Consumers as a Widespread 
Practice ........................................................................................................................................... 17 
1. Apparent Override of NLAD Denials of Duplicate Lifeline Consumers ................................ 26 
2. Apparent Enrollment of Same-Agent Duplicate Consumers .................................................. 29 
3. Apparent Enrollment of Agent-Team Duplicate Consumers .................................................. 33 
4. Apparent Enrollment of Ineligible Lifeline Consumers .......................................................... 35 
5. Apparent Enrollment of Phantom Consumer Resulting in Duplicate Consumers .................. 47 
B. TCM Apparently Failed to Ensure Proper Consumer Certifications on Lifeline 
Applications............................................................................................................................. 52 
C. TCM Sales Agents Were Apparently Not Trained to Comply with Lifeline Rules ...................... 57 
D. TCM Apparently Filed Inflated Original Form 497s and Subsequently Filed Many 
Revised Form 497s ........................................................................................................................ 60 
E. TCM’s Responses to Two Commission Subpoenas Were Delayed and Incomplete ..................... 68 
IV. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 73 
A. TCM Apparently Enrolled and Claimed Reimbursement for Many Duplicate and 
Ineligible Consumers and Failed to Have Adequate Policies and Procedures to Ensure 
Lifeline Eligibility in Violation of Lifeline Program Rules ........................................................... 74 
V. PROPOSED FORFEITURE ................................................................................................................ 84 
A. Proposed Forfeiture for TCM’s Apparent Enrollment and Claims for Reimbursement for 
Many Duplicate and Ineligible Consumers and for Failing to Have Adequate Policies and 
Procedures to Ensure Lifeline Eligibility in Violation of Lifeline Program Rules ........................ 86 
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ..................................................................................................................... 103 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 2 
APPENDIX A – Examples of Same-Agent Duplicates 
APPENDIX B – Examples of Agent-Team Duplicates 
APPENDIX C – Michigan June 2014 Form 497s 
APPENDIX D – Examples of Duplicates Remaining in NLAD as of April 2014 
APPENDIX E – Original and Revised Form 497s 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, Total Call Mobile, Inc. (TCM) received millions of 
dollars in improper reimbursements from the Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund) for duplicate and 
ineligible consumers that were apparently enrolled in violation of the Commission’s Rules.  Disturbingly, 
TCM employees repeatedly and explicitly told TCM management that the manner in which certain TCM 
sales agents were enrolling ineligible consumers constituted fraud.  Despite these warnings, TCM 
proceeded to request and receive reimbursements from the Fund for these ineligible consumers that were 
specifically identified by TCM employees.  Based upon the findings and recommendations of the 
Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) after an extensive and comprehensive investigation (the Investigation),1 we 
propose a forfeiture penalty of $51,070,322.  The forfeiture penalty we propose here reflects the 
seriousness, duration, and scope of TCM’s multiple apparent violations. 
2. The Investigation uncovered improper enrollment practices involving over 800 TCM 
sales agents, who collectively generated tens of thousands of duplicate and ineligible consumer 
enrollments across at least thirteen states through various deceptive practices, including surreptitiously 
recording consumers’ identifying information, enrolling individual consumers for multiple phones 
without their knowledge, and falsely claiming that ineligible consumers met the requirements to 
participate in the Lifeline program.   
3. Duplicate Consumers.  The Investigation identified two primary methods by which TCM 
sales agents enrolled duplicate Lifeline consumers.  Sometimes, a sales agent would enroll a consumer 
more than once, making slight changes to the consumer’s identifying information.2  Other times, a sales 
agent would share a consumer’s information with another sales agent so that the second agent could enroll 
the consumer one or more additional times, again with slight changes in the consumer’s identifying 
information.3   
4. Ineligible Consumers.  The Investigation also uncovered TCM sales agents’ practice of 
enrolling ineligible consumers in the Lifeline program, typically through the use of temporary 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cards,4 which on their face do not bear any 
identifying participant information.  
                                                     
1 In addition to the analysis of TCM data and documents, and other investigative steps, TCM Sales Agents-A, B, C, 
D, and E were interviewed in connection with the Investigation.  TCM Sales Agents-A, B, C, D, and E solicited and 
enrolled Lifeline consumers on behalf of TCM in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Mountain West, Southwest, and 
Southeast regions of the United States in 2013 and 2014.  FCC Enforcement Bureau field agents participated in the 
interviews of TCM Sales Agents A through E and kept notes of the interviews (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017650). 
2 A single TCM sales agent would enroll a Lifeline consumer with TCM, then subsequently re-enter that same 
consumer’s information into an electronic platform with slight changes to the consumer’s name, date of birth, or 
Social Security number, resulting in a duplicate enrollment (Same-Agent Duplicate). 
3 A TCM sales agent would enroll a consumer with TCM and then share that consumer’s enrollment information 
with one or more fellow TCM sales agents, who would then re-enter that same consumer’s information with slight 
changes to the consumer’s name, date of birth, or Social Security number, also resulting in a duplicate enrollment, 
this time under the name of a different TCM sales agent (Agent-Team Duplicate). 
4 See Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service (last published Aug. 21, 2015), available at http://www fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-
assistance-program-snap (last visited Apr. 5, 2016). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 3 
5. TCM requested and received Lifeline reimbursements from the Fund for duplicate and 
ineligible consumers through the submission of its FCC Form 497s (Form 497).  TCM’s own data and 
documents contain evidence of these improper enrollments.  TCM’s enrollment of duplicate and ineligible 
consumers also resulted in the improper activation of one or more Lifeline cellular phone(s).  
6. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we continue our commitment 
to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program by taking action and proposing monetary 
forfeitures against a company that has apparently ignored our Rules and exploited a program dedicated to 
providing low-income consumers with basic telephone service.  Specifically, we find that TCM 
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 54.405, 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the 
Commission’s Rules5 by requesting and receiving improper reimbursements from the Lifeline program 
for duplicate and ineligible consumers and for failing to implement policies and procedures for ensuring 
eligibility.  As a result, we propose a forfeiture of $51,070,322 for TCM’s apparent violations of the 
Commission’s Rules and Orders.  The forfeiture we propose today reflects the gravity of what appears to 
have been willful and intentional misconduct persisting for multiple years.  We believe that the proposed 
penalty will serve the Commission’s enforcement efforts to ensure accountability for past misconduct, 
deter future violations, and promote compliance with the Commission’s Rules.  
II. BACKGROUND 
A. Legal Framework 
7. Lifeline Service.  The Lifeline program is part of the USF and helps qualifying consumers 
obtain the opportunities and security that phone service brings, including being able to connect to jobs, 
family members, and emergency services.6  Lifeline service is provided by Eligible Telecommunications 
Carriers (ETCs) designated pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).7  An ETC 
may seek and receive reimbursement from the USF for revenues it forgoes in providing the discounted 
services to eligible consumers in accordance with the Rules.8  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,9 and up to an additional $25 per month if the qualifying low-income consumer 
resides on Tribal lands.10  ETCs are required to pass a discount equal to the reimbursement amount along 
to eligible low-income consumers.11   
8. The Commission’s Lifeline Rules further establish explicit requirements that ETCs must 
meet to receive federal Lifeline reimbursement.12  Section 54.407(a) of the Rules requires that Lifeline 
reimbursement “shall be provided directly to an eligible telecommunications carrier, based on the number 
                                                     
5 47 CFR §§ 54.405, 54.407, 54.409, 54.410. 
6 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 CFR §§ 54.400–54.422. 
7 47 U.S.C. § 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. § 214(e) (prescribing the 
method by which carriers are designated as ETCs). 
8 47 CFR § 54.403(a). 
9 Lifeline provides a single discounted wireline or wireless phone service to each qualifying low-income consumer’s 
household.  See 47 CFR § 54.401; see also 47 CFR § 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). 
10 See 47 CFR § 54.403(a).  Tribal lands include any federally recognized Indian tribe’s reservation, pueblo, or 
colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma and Hawaiian Homelands.  See 47 CFR § 54.400(e). 
11 See 47 CFR § 54.403(a); Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6681, para. 53. 
12 See 47 CFR §§ 54.400–54.422. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 4 
of actual qualifying low-income consumers it serves.”13  Pursuant to Section 54.407(b) of the Rules, an 
ETC may receive Lifeline reimbursement only for qualifying low-income consumers.14  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,”15 and must, 
pursuant to Section 54.410(d) of the Rules, certify his/her eligibility to receive Lifeline service.16  
9. The Commission’s Rules prohibit an ETC from seeking reimbursement for providing 
Lifeline service to a consumer unless the ETC has confirmed the consumer’s eligibility.17  In accordance 
with Section 54.410, before an ETC may seek reimbursement, it must receive a certification of eligibility 
from the prospective consumer that demonstrates that the consumer meets the income-based or program-
based eligibility criteria for receiving Lifeline service, and that the consumer is not already receiving 
Lifeline service.18   
10. Section 54.410(a) of the Commission’s Rules further requires ETCs to “implement 
policies and procedures for ensuring that their Lifeline consumers are eligible to receive Lifeline 
services.”19  As explained above, such eligibility requires that a consumer seeking Lifeline service is not 
already receiving Lifeline service.  This obligation therefore requires, at a minimum, that an ETC search 
its own internal records to ensure that it does not provide duplicate Lifeline service to any consumer (an 
“intra-company duplicate”).20  Furthermore, ETCs are required to query the National Lifeline 
Accountability Database (NLAD) to determine whether a prospective consumer is currently receiving 
Lifeline service from another ETC, and whether anyone else living at the prospective consumer’s 
residential address is currently receiving Lifeline service.21  If the NLAD indicates that a prospective 
consumer is currently receiving Lifeline service, the ETC must not seek or receive Lifeline 
reimbursement for that consumer.22  The NLAD is administered by the Universal Service Administrative 
Company (USAC). 
11. ETCs that provide qualifying low-income consumers with Lifeline service file a Form 
497 with USAC to request reimbursement from the Fund for the service they have provided to these 
consumers.  An ETC’s Form 497 documents the number of qualifying low-income consumers served and 
                                                     
13 47 CFR § 54.407(a). 
14 47 CFR § 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 CFR § 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 CFR § 54.405. 
15 47 CFR §§ 54.400(a), 54.409(c). 
16 47 CFR § 54.410(d). 
17 See 47 CFR § 54.410(b). 
18 See 47 CFR § 54.410(b), (c); see also 47 CFR § 54.410(d). 
19 47 CFR § 54.410(a).  The Commission’s Rules uses the terms “consumers” and “subscribers” interchangeably.  
See 47 CFR § 54.400, et seq. 
20 See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6691, para. 78.   
21 47 CFR § 54.404(b). 
22 Id. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 5 
the total amount of Lifeline reimbursement claimed by the ETC during the specified time period.  Section 
54.407(d) provides that an ETC may receive reimbursement from the Fund only if it certifies as part of its 
reimbursement request that it is in compliance with the Lifeline Rules.23  An ETC may file a revised Form 
497 within 12 months after the data is submitted.24   
A. Relevant Entities 
1. Total Call Mobile, Inc. (TCM) 
12. TCM is a Delaware corporation,25 with its headquarters located in Gardena, California, 
that provides wireless telephone services to predominantly Lifeline consumers.  TCM has been designated 
as an ETC to provide wireless Lifeline service in at least 19 states and territories.26  TCM’s parent 
company is KDDI Corporation (KDDI),27 which is headquartered in Japan and has corporate shares that 
are publicly traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.  KDDI describes itself as a “global telecommunications 
company that provides wireless and wireline services.”28     
13. TCM solicited and enrolled consumers for its Lifeline-supported services by contracting 
with master agents, who were based throughout the United States.  These TCM master agents in turn 
recruited individual TCM sales agents, who performed the individual Lifeline enrollments and were 
supervised by TCM master agents; enrollments performed by TCM sales agents were accessible by TCM 
itself and TCM master agents in real time.   
14. TCM represented to the Commission that it would train all sales agents and managers on 
compliance issues related to the solicitation and enrollment of Lifeline consumers.29  Based upon 
                                                     
23 See 47 CFR § 54.407(d). 
24 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 consumers that are reflected on any of its previously filed 
Form 497s.   
25 See TCM-EB-000000001-9. 
26 See, e.g., TCM-EB000002155-2170 (granting ETC designation in Colorado); see also In re: Petition of Total Call 
Mobile, Inc. for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Rhode Island for the 
Purpose of Offering Lifeline Service to Qualified Households, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 
Pub. Util. Comm’n, Docket No. 4383 (Feb. 27, 2014); In re Application for Certification as an Eligible 
Telecommunications Carrier for the purposes of receiving Low Income Federal Universal Service Support (Lifeline 
only), Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Order No. S-32188 (Nov. 13, 2013); Application of Total Call Mobile, Inc. for 
Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Wisc., 8838-TI-100 (May 7, 2013) 
(granting ETC designation collectively). 
27 TCM is a wholly owned subsidiary of Total Call International, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of KDDI 
America, Inc.  KDDI America, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of KDDI.  See TCM-EB000000011.   Like TCM, 
Locus Telecommunications, Inc. (Locus), is a subsidiary of KDDI.  Locus markets prepaid calling cards and 
provides other non-Lifeline telecommunications services.  See Locus Telecommunications, Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC 
Rcd 11805, para. 2 n.3 (2015) (ordering forfeiture of $5,000,000 arising from deceptively marketed prepaid calling 
cards); Locus Telecommunications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 12818, paras. 1-2 
(2011) (Locus Telecommunications).  TCM and Locus appear to have overlapping personnel concerning the matters 
addressed in this Investigation, and the evidence before the Commission indicates that Locus personnel performed 
compliance duties and had knowledge of the issues addressed here.  See, e.g., TCM-EB000939325, 949057.  As a 
result, this NAL will refer to TCM and Locus employees as TCM employees or Company employees, 
interchangeably. 
28 TCM-EB000000011.   
29 See Telecommunications Carrier Eligibility to Receive Universal Service Support, Lifeline and LinkUp Reform 
and Modernization, Total Call Mobile, Inc. (Compliance Plan), Total Call Mobile, Inc.’s Revised Compliance Plan 
at 5-6, 9, 15-16 (WC Docket Nos. 09-197, 11-42) (May 14, 2012). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 6 
information and spreadsheets maintained by TCM, its officers certified the accuracy of its Form 497s and 
TCM was consequently reimbursed from the Fund.  TCM then distributed commissions to TCM master 
agents that, in turn, paid commissions to individual TCM sales agents.   
2. CGM, LLC 
15. TCM engaged CGM, LLC (CGM) as a third-party vendor to facilitate the enrollment of 
Lifeline consumers.  CGM provided TCM with an electronic platform through which TCM sales agents 
entered Lifeline consumer information and enrolled Lifeline consumers via tablet computers in the field, 
as well as provided the consumer with the ability to electronically sign required enrollment forms and 
certifications.30   
16. The consumer enrollment information entered by TCM sales agents into CGM’s platform 
was transmitted electronically, using tablet computers, to NLAD.  TCM had real-time access to all 
documents, information, and data entered into TCM’s CGM-based system by TCM sales agents, which 
TCM used to process Lifeline enrollment applications.31   
III. THE COMMISSION’S INVESTIGATION 
A. TCM Apparently Enrolled Duplicate and Ineligible Lifeline Consumers as a 
Widespread Practice 
17. The evidence shows that TCM sales agents apparently enrolled duplicate and ineligible 
Lifeline consumers on a large scale.  USAC first identified duplicates in November 2014 when it 
reviewed TCM’s consumer lists and notified TCM that it had identified 32,498 intra-company duplicate 
consumers, spanning thirteen states, over a period of approximately two years.32  In a limited response to 
the First TCM Subpoena, TCM produced an internal spreadsheet concerning these duplicate consumers 
(TCM Duplicate Spreadsheet), which indicates that the 32,498 intra-company duplicates were enrolled by 
over 800 TCM sales agents.33  Despite acknowledging reimbursement for the vast majority of the 32,498 
duplicate entries, TCM claimed that it did not seek Lifeline reimbursement for  of the entries.34  
TCM also produced internal company consumer lists to support its Form 497 filings for January 2014 
through October 2014.35  A review of the TCM Duplicate Spreadsheet revealed which TCM sales agents 
processed the enrollment applications for each duplicate consumer identified by USAC.36  Based on an 
                                                     
30 TCM and CGM are both represented by the law firm Kelley Drye & Warren LLP in connection with the 
Investigation.  As discussed in greater detail below, subpoenas were issued to both TCM and CGM, the former as 
the target of this Investigation and the latter as an entity in possession of probative documents insofar as CGM 
rendered services to TCM in TCM’s enrollment of duplicate and ineligible Lifeline consumers.  TCM failed to 
provide either complete or timely productions in response to these subpoenas.  Similarly, CGM failed to provide 
complete productions in response to the subpoena.     
31 See Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, counsel to Total Call Mobile, Inc., to 
Dangkhoa Nguyen, Investigative Counsel, FCC Enforcement Bureau, USF Strike Force at 2 (Dec. 3, 2014); TCM-
EB00000869-2783; see also 47 CFR § 54.410(c)(1). 
32 See Letter from Ryan B. Palmer, Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Federal Communication Commission to Masaaki Nakanishi, President and Chief Executive Officer, Total 
Call International (Nov. 13, 2014) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017650). 
33 See TCM-EB-000000868.  Based on an in-depth review of the data, we have reason to believe that the figure of 
32,498 intra-company duplicates does not necessarily include all duplicate Lifeline consumers enrolled by TCM.  
Compare TCM-EB000290801-02 and TCM-EB000290865-66 with TCM-EB-000000868. 
34 Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, counsel to Total Call Mobile, Inc., to Ryan B. 
Palmer, Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communication 
Commission at 4 (Dec. 18, 2014). 
35 See TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 
36 See TCM-EB-000000868. 


 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 9 
duplicate consumers identified on these spreadsheets, including duplicate consumers in the June 2014 
example report, through at least October 2014.55 
1.  Apparent Override of NLAD Denials of Duplicate Lifeline Consumers   
26. CGM’s software platform interacted with NLAD to identify and deny potential duplicate 
enrollments during the application process.  However, the Investigation revealed that CGM’s denial 
message was not final and TCM routinely overrode the denials to push through the denied enrollments.   
27. TCM sales agents stated, in sum and substance, that TCM employees assisted them with 
overriding denials caused by intra-company duplicate consumers.56  These TCM sales agents stated that 
they would call a TCM sales agent help line where TCM employees would “push through” the intra-
company duplicates through an override function the TCM employees could remotely activate.57  These 
statements were corroborated by USAC data.  For instance, USAC records show that 99.8 percent of 
TCM’s Lifeline enrollments nationwide during the fourth quarter of 2014 were the result of an override of 
third-party identification verification.58  In addition, an analysis of the Denver, Colorado area 
demonstrates that between 96 percent and 100 percent of total TCM enrollments resulted from an 
override of third-party identification verification.59   
28. Moreover, the TCM employees on the sales agent help line directly advised TCM sales 
agents on how to circumvent or disguise defective identification and eligibility documentation.  For 
example, TCM Sales Agent-D stated, in sum and substance, that s/he was instructed by TCM employees 
from the agent help line to obscure information with the sales agent’s finger on the consumer’s 
identification and eligibility documents that they believed would make such documents unacceptable if 
visible.60  This included identification documents marked “VOID,” and eligibility documents that would 
not qualify the applicants for Lifeline.  According to TCM sales agents interviewed, they were also 
instructed to obscure the numbers contained on improperly obtained eligibility documents used to support 
duplicate and ineligible consumer applications.61 
2. Apparent Enrollment of Same-Agent Duplicate Consumers 
29. Dozens of TCM sales agents apparently enrolled Same-Agent Duplicate Consumers,62 
often multiple times per consumer—and in certain known instances uncovered during the Investigation, 
                                                     
55 See TCM-EB-000002792-2801.  See also TCM-EB000940421-22.  As noted elsewhere, the most recent Form 497 
backup spreadsheet produced by TCM was for October 2014, despite repeated demands for spreadsheets related to 
subsequent months.   
56 See supra note 1. 
57 Id. 
58 Information on file in EB-IHD-14-00017650.  There are two possible ways the overrides were taking place.  First, 
in accord with two different sales agent interviews, TCM could have been individually “pushing through” identity 
verification if it failed the NLAD check.  Alternatively, and more consistent with the close to 100 percent override 
rate observed in the fourth quarter of 2014, TCM could have set the software to automatically override all NLAD 
verification results, no matter the result.  It is possible that TCM used both methods at different points in time or 
different places.  Regardless of which method was used, the NLAD verification system was subverted. 
59 Information on file in EB-IHD-14-00017650.   
60 See supra note 1. 
61 Id. 
62 A single TCM sales agent would enroll a Lifeline consumer with TCM, then subsequently re-enter that same 
consumer’s information into an electronic platform with slight changes to the consumer’s name, date of birth, or 
Social Security number, resulting in a duplicate enrollment (Same-Agent Duplicate). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 10 
without the knowledge or participation of the consumers.  To do so, TCM sales agents manipulated 
identifying details of TCM Lifeline consumers’ information.  
30. During their interviews, sales agents discussed the practice of how TCM sales agents 
manipulated consumer information.63  Specifically, they stated, in sum and substance, that their superiors 
instructed them to alter the names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security information of consumers 
to cause one or more duplicate Lifeline cellular phones to be issued.64  As a result, TCM sales agents 
obtained improperly activated Lifeline cellular phones and received additional commissions. 
Consequently, it would be more difficult for authorities, including law enforcement, to obtain proper 
subscriber information for the actual person using the Lifeline cellular phones.  The TCM Duplicate 
Spreadsheet and other evidence obtained during the course of the Investigation corroborated the sales 
agents’ statements and showed that TCM received improper Lifeline reimbursement for multiple months 
for these improper enrollments.65  The table contained in Appendix A illustrates how TCM Lifeline 
consumer information was manipulated by TCM sales agents to generate Same-Agent Duplicates.66 
31. Furthermore, a review of TCM’s records reveals that TCM Sales Agent-G enrolled more 
than 400 Same-Agent Duplicate Consumers where s/he simply re-entered the consumer information for a 
second time into CGM’s platform, almost exclusively on the same day as the first consumer enrollment 
entry.67  Other TCM sales agents combined to generate thousands of Same-Agent Duplicates with the 
same practice, including, for example, TCM Sales Agent-O, who it appears was alone responsible for 
more than 1,000 Same-Agent Duplicates.68   
32. Based upon the evidence uncovered as a result of the Investigation, we conclude that 
there was an apparent widespread practice among TCM sales agents to manipulate and misidentify details 
of Lifeline consumer’s information in order to avoid detection of duplicate and ineligible consumers by 
NLAD and USAC.      
3. Apparent Enrollment of Agent-Team Duplicate Consumers 
33. TCM sales agents who were interviewed stated, in sum and substance, that they observed 
and/or participated in the enrollment of Agent-Team Duplicates69 at the behest of their superiors within 
the TCM sales structure.70  These sales agents stated that TCM sales agents “shared,” “traded,” and 
surreptitiously photographed the identification and/or eligibility document(s) of legitimate Lifeline 
consumers and electronically transmitted those documents to one or more other TCM sales agent(s) for 
the purpose of generating Agent-Team Duplicate enrollments for themselves and for TCM.71  In other 
instances, only the identification document would be transmitted to the recipient TCM sales agent(s), and 
the recipient(s) would then use the identification document in conjunction with improperly obtained 
SNAP cards to serve as the eligibility-authorizing document for duplicate enrollments in the Lifeline 
                                                     
63 See supra note 1.  
64 Id. 
65 See TCM-EB-000000868; TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 
66 See TCM-EB-0000000868. 
67 See TCM-EB-000000868; TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 
68 Id. 
69 A TCM sales agent would enroll a consumer with TCM and then share that consumer’s enrollment information 
with one or more fellow TCM sales agents, who would then re-enter that same consumer’s information with slight 
changes to the consumer’s name, date of birth, or Social Security number, also resulting in a duplicate enrollment 
(Agent-Team Duplicate). 
70 See supra note 1.   
71 Id. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 11 
program.72  The TCM sales agent who received this information would enter this improperly obtained 
identification and eligibility information into CGM’s platform and generate one or more duplicate 
Lifeline enrollments.73   
34. A review of the TCM data and documents uncovered groups of TCM sales agents, 
ranging from couplets to groups of more than one dozen people, who enrolled Agent-Team Duplicates in 
2013 and 2014.74  For example, it appears that TCM Sales Agent-G and TCM Sales Agent-M formed a 
“team” that enrolled more than 75 Agent-Team Duplicate Consumers; TCM Sales Agent-H and TCM 
Sales Agent-I also formed a “team” that enrolled more than 100 Agent-Team Duplicate Lifeline 
Consumers.75  These findings corroborated statements made by certain TCM sales agents during their 
interviews.  As demonstrated by the table in Appendix B,76 TCM sales agents manipulated TCM Lifeline 
consumer information to generate Agent-Team Duplicates.  Each of the duplicate pairs shown in 
Appendix B were enrolled within a short period of time, sometimes on the same day.77 
4. Apparent Enrollment of Ineligible Lifeline Consumers 
35. TCM apparently has inadequate policies and procedures to ensure Lifeline eligibility, 
resulting in the enrollment of ineligible consumers.  As addressed in additional detail below, TCM knew 
that its sales agents, across multiple master agents and operating in numerous states, were repeatedly 
using single SNAP cards to enroll multiple ineligible consumers.  The TCM sales agents that were 
interviewed discussed these practices in detail. 
36. TCM sales agents that were interviewed stated, in sum and substance, that there was 
widespread misuse of eligibility documents that resulted in the enrollment of ineligible consumers in 
Lifeline by TCM at the behest of high-level managers working for TCM master agents.78  In particular, 
the sales agents relayed management’s emphasis on using temporary SNAP cards to enroll ineligible 
consumers because those cards frequently did not contain the SNAP recipients’ names on the cards.  
37. TCM sales agents, who were interviewed separately, collectively enrolled TCM 
consumers in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Mountain West, Southwest, and Southeast regions of the United 
States during the relevant time period, and stated the following:79 
a. TCM Sales Agent-A was interviewed in December 2014 and stated, in sum and 
substance, that s/he was instructed by his/her managers to obtain and use improperly 
obtained SNAP cards to enroll ineligible Lifeline consumers in connection with 
his/her role as a TCM sales agent and stated that s/he did so.  TCM Sales Agent-A 
further stated that s/he took photographs of improperly obtained SNAP cards and, in 
turn, used those photographs as eligibility documents to enroll ineligible Lifeline 
consumers. 
b. TCM Sales Agent-B was interviewed in March 2015 and stated, in sum and 
substance, that s/he saw managers for the TCM master agents with “stacks” in excess 
of 200 improperly-obtained SNAP cards which the managers stated they purchased 
                                                     
72 Id. 
73 Id. 
74 See TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 
75 Id. 
76 See TCM-EB-0000000868. 
77 Id. 
78 See supra note 1. 
79 See id. 

 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 13 
”85  TCM employees consequently created spreadsheets 
in an effort to track the specific SNAP card numbers used multiple times by the sales agents, but noted 
that it was “ ” and requested supervisors’ input on “ ”86   
41. TCM employees gave TCM management specific details about the “ ” being 
perpetrated by its sales agents.  Beginning in April 2014, TCM managerial and supervisory employees 
were sent numerous emails that listed specific TCM enrollment order numbers which relied on SNAP 
card numbers that were used multiple times, identified those SNAP card numbers, and identified the 
particular TCM sales agent(s) involved.87   
42. In total, TCM employees identified and alerted their superiors to no less than 182 
fraudulent Lifeline enrollments from Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada which relied on SNAP cards that 
were repeatedly used in the enrollment process.  These 182 Lifeline consumers were enrolled by 31 TCM 
sales agents who were employed by various master agents.88  These enrollments resulted in improper 
requests and receipt of USF funds.  Of these 182 Lifeline enrollments, TCM sought and received 
reimbursement from the Fund for 110 Lifeline phones for one or more months after TCM management 
was informed of the suspect eligibility documents that supported the enrollment.89  Thirteen of these 182 
Lifeline phones were flagged in April 2014; of these 13 phones, TCM sought and received Lifeline 
reimbursement for six of those phones in at least April, May, June, July, August, September, and October 
2014.90 
43. During an April 28, 2015 meeting with TCM executives, its counsel, and Bureau staff, 
TCM admitted that based on a sample of TCM Lifeline applications it analyzed, approximately  percent 
of all applications used SNAP cards for eligibility, and of those,  percent were supported by 
applications where the same eligibility document was presented in more than one instance.91  In addition, 
in August 2014, an employee of the Commission acting in an undercover capacity (Commission 
Employee-1) approached and engaged TCM Sales Agent-F at a tent advertising Lifeline cellular phones 
for TCM.92  Commission Employee-1 told TCM Sales Agent-F that s/he sought to obtain a Lifeline 
cellular phone through TCM, but that s/he had neither an identification nor an eligibility document.93  
TCM Sales Agent-F assured Commission Employee-1 that s/he could nonetheless obtain a Lifeline 
cellular phone through TCM because TCM Sales Agent-F possessed extra SNAP cards that could be used 
as the requisite eligibility document.94  TCM Sales Agent-F further instructed Commission Employee-1 to 
obtain a relative’s identification document so that Commission Employee-1 could secure multiple Lifeline 
cellular phones.95 
                                                     
85 TCM-EB000948950. 
86 Id.  To the extent anyone responded to this email, no responses were produced by TCM. 
87 See TCM-EB000939071-73, 939080-81, 939083-84, 939089-90, 939091-95, 939096-98, 939173-90, 939325-27, 
939400-01, 939635-37, 939955-56. 
88 Id.; see also TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 
89 Id. 
90 Id.  TCM failed to produce its underlying Form 497 spreadsheets for any month following October 2014, despite 
repeated and specific demands for such documents by the Bureau.   
91 See Total Call Mobile, Inc., FCC Enforcement Bureau Meeting at 5 (Apr. 28, 2015) (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017650). 
92 Information on file in EB-IHD-14-00017650. 
93 Id. 
94 Id. 
95 Id. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 14 
44. Similarly, on November 6, 2014, CBS’s local affiliate in Denver, Colorado, aired a report 
that concerned TCM sales agents’ interaction with a CBS producer, who posed as a prospective Lifeline 
consumer (CBS News Report).96  In the CBS News Report, TCM sales agents apparently induced the 
CBS producer to improperly borrow another individual’s SNAP card to serve as the eligibility document, 
and the TCM sales agents then provided a Lifeline cellular phone to the CBS producer.97  
45. The Investigation also revealed a practice among TCM sales agents of falsely listing 
homeless shelter addresses for duplicate and ineligible consumers.  TCM sales agents who were 
interviewed stated, in sum and substance, that that they frequently assigned a homeless shelter as the 
address for TCM consumers because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to disprove that the 
consumer resided at a homeless shelter at the time of enrollment in Lifeline through TCM.98  Of the 
duplicate consumers identified here, more than 600 duplicate enrollments list a single homeless shelter as 
the address of record.99 
46. As part of the Investigation, the Bureau conducted a review of more than 100 duplicate 
consumer enrollments (more than 200 names and Social Security numbers) identified by USAC, and 
attempted to verify the validity of the last four digits of Lifeline consumers’ Social Security numbers as 
allegedly provided to TCM sales agents at the time of enrollment.  From this random sample of duplicate 
consumers, not one accurate Social Security number could be corroborated through a third-party identity 
verification process.100  Additionally, dozens of these suspect enrollments from this sample listed a 
homeless shelter as the purported consumer’s address. 
5. Apparent Enrollment of Phantom Consumer Resulting in Duplicate 
Consumers 
47. The Investigation uncovered evidence that some duplicate consumers were also the result 
of a TCM sales agent creating a phantom consumer,101 who was enrolled in Lifeline without the purported 
consumer’s knowledge.  This resulted in additional duplicate consumers, multiple cellular phones being 
activated and issued, and TCM apparently receiving improper Lifeline reimbursements.   
48. For example, in 2014, TCM Sales Agent-N was arrested and charged with, among other 
things, identity theft.102  At the time of TCM Sales Agent-N’s arrest, s/he was in possession of the stolen 
wallet of another individual (Victim-A), which contained Victim-A’s driver’s license.  TCM Sales Agent-
N was also in possession of 12 TCM-issued Lifeline cellular phones at the time of his/her arrest.103  
According to the arrest report, TCM Sales Agent-N stated with regard to Victim-A’s wallet and driver’s 
                                                     
96 See “Government’s Free Phone Program Riddled With Abuse, Fraud,” CBS4, Denver (Nov. 6, 2014), available at 
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/11/06/governments-free-phone-program-riddled-with-abuse-fraud/ (last visited 
Apr. 5, 2016). 
97 Id. 
98 See supra note 1. 
99 See TCM-EB-000000868. 
100 These consumer data were subjected to identity verification through LexisNexis.  See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 
FCC Rcd at 6742-43. 
101 A “phantom consumer” describes duplicates based on an individual that was enrolled by a TCM sales agent for 
Lifeline without knowledge that s/he was being enrolled.  A phantom consumer appeared in TCM and USAC 
records to be a Lifeline consumer when, in fact, that person never sought Lifeline-supported cellular phone service 
nor executed any of the required forms.      
102 Documents concerning the arrest of TCM Sales Agent-N, obtained in response to a Commission subpoena issued 
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 403, 409 (Apr. 1, 2015) (documents and Subpoena on file in EB-IHD-14-00017650).   
103 Id.   
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 15 
license: “I just found it one night and, like, I was just doing those [Lifeline] phones so every once in a 
while I use it to get extra credits.  That’s why I have so many extra phones.”104   
49. Evidence of TCM Sales Agent-N’s scheme was corroborated by an analysis of TCM’s 
data and documents.  A review of TCM data shows that over the course of approximately one month, 
more than 10 Lifeline cellular phones were registered and subscribed in Victim-A’s name as a TCM 
consumer, and that TCM Sales Agent-N was the sales agent who enrolled Victim-A in the Lifeline 
program and registered the cellular phones in Victim-A’s name.105  TCM Sales Agent-N enrolled Victim-
A in Lifeline without Victim-A’s knowledge or participation.  TCM’s data and documents show that 
slight variations were made to Victim-A’s middle initials and Social Security information while Victim-
A’s first name, last name, date of birth, and one of two addresses remained the same.106   
50. Victim-A neither applied to participate in Lifeline through TCM nor did s/he know that 
his/her personal information had been used to create a single Lifeline consumer account, let alone more 
than 10 accounts over the course of a few weeks.  Further analysis shows that TCM requested and 
received Lifeline reimbursement for multiple months for all the Lifeline cellular phones TCM Sales 
Agent-N subscribed in Victim-A’s name.107   
51. It also appears that TCM Sales Agent-N enrolled him/herself as a Same-Agent Duplicate 
Consumer in Lifeline through TCM for more than a dozen cellular phones.108  As with Victim-A’s 
enrollment in Lifeline, TCM Sales Agent-N apparently manipulated his/her own consumer information 
and name in a similar manner.  TCM apparently requested and received Lifeline reimbursement for 
multiple months for TCM Sales Agent-N’s Same-Agent Duplicates of him/herself.109   
B. TCM Apparently Failed to Ensure Proper Consumer Certifications on Lifeline 
Applications 
52. The Investigation uncovered several instances in which TCM apparently failed to ensure 
that Lifeline consumers certified their compliance with the Lifeline Rules as required by Section 
54.410(d).   
53. In or about October 2014, USAC performed an audit of consumer certifications for TCM 
enrollments that occurred in Maryland.  In response to a request for certification forms, TCM produced a 
series of consumer certifications where the purported consumer signature was merely a straight line or 
curvy line.  TCM also produced a series of consumer certifications where the purported consumer 
signature was similar to the signature of the respective TCM sales agent who solicited the Lifeline 
consumers.110   
54.  In their interviews, TCM Sales Agents-A, B, C, D, and E all stated, in sum and 
substance, that it was the common, if not exclusive, practice of TCM sales agents to sign the consumer 
certification instead of the consumer.111  TCM Sales Agents-A, B, C, D, and E all further stated, in sum 
                                                     
104 Id.  
105 See TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 
106 Id. 
107 Id. 
108 Id. 
109 Id. 
110 See Letter from Wayne M. Scott, Vice President of Internal Audit Division, USAC to Travis LeBlanc, Bureau 
Chief, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Feb. 6, 2015) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017650). 
111 See supra note 1. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 16 
and substance, that TCM sales agents did so without ever confirming the accuracy of the certification 
with the consumer, or ever even advising the consumer of the content of the certifications.112   
55. TCM Sales Agent-D stated, in sum and substance, that, despite his/her many months 
working full-time as a TCM sales agent, s/he did not know the contents of the consumer certification, 
never once read the certification to a consumer prior to signing on behalf of the consumer, and had not 
even read the consumer certification him/herself.  TCM Sales Agent-D also discussed his/her confusion 
regarding the execution of consumer certifications on the Lifeline enrollment forms.  Specifically, TCM 
Sales Agent-D mistakenly believed that s/he was supposed to sign the consumer certification instead of 
the consumer.  In fact, TCM Sales Agent-D stated that s/he signed his/her own name in the consumer 
signature block in excess of 1,000 times during his/her affiliation with TCM.  Based on a review of a 
sample of consumer application documents provided by TCM, that statement has been corroborated.  
TCM records also indicate that Lifeline cellular phones were activated where TCM Sales Agent-D signed 
his/her name in the consumer signature block for the consumer certification, and that TCM then requested 
and received Lifeline reimbursement in connection with these consumers.113   
56. This problem was not limited to TCM Sales Agent-D.  Several other TCM sales agents 
signed their own names in the consumer signature block on the Lifeline certification portion of the TCM 
enrollment application, as well as the TCM sales agent signature block.  Upon reviewing a sample of 
these TCM sales agents’ applications, every application contained the respective TCM sales agent’s 
signatures in both the agent and consumer signature blocks.   
C. TCM Sales Agents Were Apparently Not Trained to Comply with Lifeline Rules 
57. TCM Sales Agents-A, B, C, D, and E all stated, in sum and substance, that they never 
underwent any training concerning compliance with the Commission’s Rules in the solicitation and 
enrollment of Lifeline consumers.114  They all reported that the extent of their training concerned the 
mechanics of how to enter consumer data into CGM’s platform.  Each of the five TCM sales agents 
denied receiving any formal, classroom, or PowerPoint-based training concerning the enrollment or 
solicitation of Lifeline consumers, despite TCM’s production of original and revised PowerPoint 
presentations that were purportedly given to its sales agents concerning compliance issues in the 
enrollment of Lifeline consumers.115  In response to the First TCM Subpoena, TCM did not provide 
records that would demonstrate the training TCM sales agents underwent, such as sign-in and sign-out 
sheets.116  TCM continued to fail to provide the subpoenaed documents even after specific, written 
follow-up requests by the Bureau.117 
58. This lack of training also apparently violated TCM’s Compliance Plan.  In the 
Compliance Plan it presented to the Commission, TCM represented that its personnel will be “fully 
trained in Lifeline requirements” to the extent that such TCM personnel will be equipped to “conduct an 
                                                     
112 Id. 
113 See TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 
114 See supra note 1. 
115 See, e.g., TCM-EB000000063-180, 259-375, 380-422, 431-87. 
116 TCM produced a spreadsheet that purports to show re-certification for the managers of TCM’s master agents in 
November 2014 after TCM was notified about the duplicates identified here.  See TCM-EB0000000849.  However, 
TCM did not produce any similar document concerning the training or re-training of individual sales agents, nor any 
other documents concerning the training of individual sales agents except the TCM sales agents at issue in the CBS 
News Report. 
117 See Letter from David M. Sobotkin, Investigative Counsel, FCC Enforcement Bureau, USF Strike Force to 
Steven A. Augustino, counsel for TCM, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (Apr. 13, 2015) (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017650). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 17 
interview” of prospective Lifeline applicants to “ensur[e] that the potential consumer does not already 
receive a Lifeline subsidy; that TCM “personnel will be trained on acceptable documentation required to 
establish income-based and program-based eligibility; and that company “personnel will be trained to 
answer questions about Lifeline eligibility, and will review required documentation to determine whether 
it satisfies the Lifeline Reform Order and state-specific eligibility requirements using state-specific 
checklists.”118  
59. Based on the findings of the Investigation, TCM apparently violated the representations 
contained in its Compliance Plan. 
D. TCM Apparently Filed Inflated Original Form 497s and Subsequently Filed Many 
Revised Form 497s  
60. In order to receive Lifeline reimbursements from the Fund, TCM submitted Form 497s in 
which it identified the number of active consumers it enrolled in particular states/territories and for 
particular months.  Beginning in January 2013, TCM submitted monthly Form 497s for California, 
Michigan, Maryland, West Virginia, Louisiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, Texas, Arizona, 
Colorado, Utah, Washington, Nevada, Kentucky, Kansas, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.  In each original and 
revised Form 497, TCM reported the total number of non-tribal and tribal low-income consumers 
receiving Lifeline support multiplied by the applicable support amount, and submitted a total Lifeline 
reimbursement claim.  TCM maintained information for each consumer in Form 497 backup 
spreadsheets,119 and used this data to determine the total number of consumers for whom to claim Lifeline 
reimbursements.   
61. In connection with each original and revised Form 497 filed by TCM, a TCM officer 
certified, in pertinent part, as follows: 
I certify that my company is in compliance with all of the Lifeline program rules, and, to 
the extent required, have obtained valid certifications for each [consumer] for whom my 
company seeks reimbursement. 
Based on the information known to me or provided to me by employees responsible for 
the preparation of the data being submitted, I certify under penalty of perjury that the data 
contained in this form has been examined and reviewed and is true, accurate, and 
complete. 
[. . .] 
Persons willfully making false statements on this form can be punished by fine or 
imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.120 
62. TCM’s Chief Operating Officer and Chief Administrative Officer/Chief Legal 
Officer/Corporate Secretary, respectively, certified the original and revised forms. 
63. In total, TCM submitted 542 original and 729 revised Form 497s from January 2013 
through March 2016 for each of the 19 states and territories across the country in which TCM claimed 
Lifeline reimbursements.121  After being notified in November 2014 of the USAC review finding of more 
than 32,000 intracompany duplicate consumers, TCM filed hundreds of revised Form 497s.  Many of the 
Form 497s had four separate revisions, often being filed over the course of long periods.  For example, a 
Form 497 for the February 2014 data month was revised four times: in May 2014, September 2014, 
                                                     
118 TCM Compliance Plan at 5, 9. 
119 See, e.g., TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 
120 See generally TCM-EB000002241-2783 (FCC Form 497, April 2012 Edition). 
121 Information on file in EB-IHD-14-00017650.   

 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 19 
26, 2015, the duplicate enrollments in the names of each of these consumers remained active in NLAD 
under the same TCM phone number assigned in 2014.131        
E. TCM’s Responses to Two Commission Subpoenas Were Delayed and Incomplete  
68. On November 10, 2014 and May 19, 2015, the Commission, through the Enforcement 
Bureau, issued subpoenas to TCM.132  In response, counsel for TCM served its objections and 
responses.133   In response to the first subpoena, TCM produced a limited set of documents; in response to 
the second subpoena, no further documents were produced.  The second subpoena generally sought 
additional documents not in existence at the time of the first subpoena.134  Through discussions and 
correspondence, the Bureau notified TCM that its productions were deficient.135  In partial response to the 
November 2014 subpoena, TCM made an additional document production on December 22, 2015.   
69. One of the most important requests was for “eligibility documentation for the Company’s 
new Lifeline consumers.”136  Eligibility documentation would include copies of the particular document 
the consumer supposedly used to show that he or she was eligible for Lifeline, such as a SNAP card or 
Medicaid card.  If TCM sales agents enrolled consumers using temporary SNAP cards, and these same 
cards were used repeatedly for multiple consumers, the evidence of this use (or misuse) would be in the 
copies of the consumer’s eligibility documents collected by TCM in support of a particular Lifeline 
enrollment application and stored by CGM.  There is no other way to acquire this data, as it is not 
collected, received, or retained by USAC or any other entity.   
70. With the exception of one production limited in time and to one state (Colorado) and a 
handful of emails, TCM failed to provide copies of eligibility documents.  TCM admitted that it had 
“ ”137 and TCM also maintained select eligibility 
                                                     
131 See id. 
132 Subpoena issued pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 403, 409 (Nov. 10, 2014) (First TCM Subpoena); subpoena 
issued pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 403, 409 (May 19, 2015) (Second TCM Subpoena) (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017650).   
133 “Objections and Responses to Subpoena of the Office of the Inspector General for the Federal Communications 
Commission [sic]” (Nov. 21, 2014); “Objections and Responses to Subpoena of the Office of the Inspector General 
for the Federal Communications Commission [sic]” (June 2, 2015).   
134 For instance, the second subpoena requested updated Lifeline enrollment spreadsheets for the months of 
November 2014 through April 2015 that served to support TCM’s Form 497s.  This would be an update to the 
produced spreadsheets at TCM-EB-000002792-2801.   
135 See Letter from Dangkhoa Nguyen, Investigative Counsel, FCC Enforcement Bureau, USF Strike Force to 
Steven A. Augustino, counsel for TCM, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (Nov. 28, 2014) (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017650); Letter from Steven A. Augustino, counsel for TCM, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP to Dangkhoa Nguyen, 
Investigative Counsel, FCC Enforcement Bureau, USF Strike Force (Dec. 3, 2014) (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017650); Letter from Dangkhoa Nguyen, Investigative Counsel, FCC Enforcement Bureau, USF Strike Force to 
Steven A. Augustino, counsel for TCM, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (Dec. 31, 2014) (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017650); Letter from David M. Sobotkin, Investigative Counsel, FCC Enforcement Bureau, USF Strike Force to 
Steven A. Augustino, counsel for TCM, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (Apr. 13, 2015) (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017650) 
136 First Subpoena, Attachment A, para. 8; Second Subpoena, Attachment A, para. 2(e). 
137 Letter from Steven A. Augustino, counsel for TCM, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP to Dangkhoa Nguyen, 
Investigative Counsel, FCC Enforcement Bureau, USF Strike Force at 2 (Dec. 3, 2014) (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017650). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 20 
documents that were attached to or contained in company emails.138  Despite having access to the 
documents, TCM refused to produce them.139   
71. TCM’s only significant production of eligibility data was for Colorado for a six-week 
period during the fall of 2014, and included identification and eligibility documents for approximately 
 consumers.140   Analysis of the Colorado eligibility data was consistent with other evidence 
produced in the Bureau’s Investigation: it showed that TCM sales agents frequently and repeatedly used 
the same SNAP cards to support Lifeline enrollments for different consumers, and SNAP cards 
constituted the majority of the eligibility documents used in TCM’s enrollment process.  TCM admitted 
that of the  applications in the Colorado eligibility data,  used SNAP to demonstrate eligibility 
and  SNAP cards were presented more than once in that same data set.141  These findings were further 
corroborated by TCM emails that reflect TCM’s knowledge, as early as April 2014, that its sales agents 
were using the same SNAP cards multiple times to enroll consumers, and did so for hundreds of 
enrollments.142  The Bureau believes that if a full set of eligibility documentation had been produced, it 
would have shown TCM enrolled, and improperly claimed reimbursement for, additional ineligible and 
duplicate consumers.   
72. In addition to the eligibility data, TCM failed to timely produce other documents.  TCM 
also failed to produce documents related to the hiring of sales agents,143 background check forms,144 and 
confidentiality agreements with the exception of the four sales agents in the CBS News Report and a 
handful of other agents.145  Furthermore, TCM has not produced any additional documents with respect to 
the Second TCM Subpoena, including its consumer lists to support its Form 497 filings for the months 
between the two subpoenas,146 despite its production of those consumer lists for January through October 
2014.147   
IV. DISCUSSION 
73. Based on the evidence developed in this Investigation, we conclude that TCM apparently 
willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 54.405, 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410148 of the Commission’s 
Rules by requesting and receiving Lifeline reimbursement for duplicate and ineligible consumers and for 
failing to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure Lifeline eligibility.149  Based on the facts and 
                                                     
138 See, e.g., TCM-EB000939173-90, 939325-26. 
139 TCM argued that the Commission Rules prohibit retention of eligibility documents, pointing to 47 CFR § 
54.410(c)(1)(i)-(ii).  However, TCM has never offered any explanation as to how its admitted routine retention of 
the documents for 30 days complied with that interpretation of the Commission Rules.   
140 See TCM-EB000000869-2154. 
141 See Total Call Mobile, Inc., FCC Enforcement Bureau Meeting at 5 (Apr. 28, 2015) (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017650) (TCM Presentation). 
142 See supra Section III.A.4. 
143 First Subpoena, Attachment A, para. 5; Second Subpoena, Attachment A, para. 1(b). 
144 Id. 
145 Id. 
146 Second Subpoena, Attachment A, para. 2(f). 
147 See TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 
148 47 CFR §§ 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.  See also supra paras. 7-11 (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 consumer’s eligibility for Lifeline service 
in violation of the Rules). 
149 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines “willful” as the “conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 21 
circumstances before us, and pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s Rules, we therefore conclude that TCM is apparently liable for forfeiture penalties totaling 
$51,070,322. 
A. TCM Apparently Enrolled and Claimed Reimbursement for Many Duplicate and 
Ineligible Consumers and Failed to Have Adequate Policies and Procedures to 
Ensure Lifeline Eligibility in Violation of Lifeline Program Rules 
74. Based on the evidence uncovered in the Investigation, TCM apparently enrolled and 
claimed reimbursement for many duplicate and ineligible consumers in the Lifeline program.  Moreover, 
TCM apparently continued to improperly claim reimbursements for hundreds of duplicate and ineligible 
consumers even after TCM employees identified and reported specific duplicate and ineligible consumers 
to TCM managers and supervisors; these improper enrollments continued to appear in TCM’s Form 497 
backup spreadsheets for at least six months even after they were explicitly identified by TCM employees 
and described as “ .”  In addition, TCM apparently failed to implement policies and procedures to 
ensure that its consumers were eligible to receive Lifeline services.   
75. TCM sales agents, whom TCM did not train regarding compliance with the 
Commission’s Rules in apparent violation of its Compliance Plan, abused the Lifeline enrollment process 
by: manipulating consumer information to generate enrollments; using false and stolen identification and 
eligibility documents; sharing consumer information to enable other sales agents to generate additional 
duplicate enrollments; tampering with identification and eligibility documents to conceal their false 
nature; and coaching sales agents to engage in these same practices.  When these practices resulted in an 
enrollment being denied by NLAD, TCM employees who staffed the TCM sales agent help line assisted 
sales agents in “pushing through” the enrollment through the use of an override function which the TCM 
helpline employees could remotely activate.  TCM sales agent help line employees also directly advised 
TCM sales agents on how to circumvent or disguise defective identification and eligibility documentation 
so that the documentation would not disqualify an enrollment.  Even after TCM employees identified 
what they described as the “ ,” TCM permitted these “ ” to continue to 
enroll duplicate and ineligible Lifeline consumers for many more months, and TCM sought and received 
Lifeline reimbursement for these consumers.150  Similarly, those sales agents identified by TCM 
employees as having submitted multiple enrollments supported by the same SNAP card were permitted to 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law.   47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  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.  See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d 
Sess. 51 (1982); So. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), recons. 
denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern California Broadcasting).  The Commission may also assess a forfeiture 
for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.  See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, para. 10 (2001).  “Repeated” means that the act was 
committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day.  Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 
4388, para. 5.  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.  See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4); 47 CFR § 1.80(f ).  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.  See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, para. 4 (2002).  Under 
Section 503(b)(1)(B) 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.  See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 CFR § 1.80(a)(1).   
150 TCM-EB000940610-11; see also TCM-EB-000002792-2801. 


 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 24 
V. PROPOSED FORFEITURE 
84. 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 $160,000 for each 
violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,575,000 for a single act 
or failure to act.165  The Commission retains the discretion to issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, 
under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the 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,”166 
as well as our forfeiture guidelines.167   
 
85. Based on the facts and record before us, we have determined that the categories of 
TCM’s apparent violations involve: (i) the filing of and failure to correct improper Form 497s; (ii) the 
lack of policies and procedures to ensure consumer eligibility; and (iii) the enrollment of 2,587 duplicate 
consumers for several months after USAC specifically alerted TCM to these improper enrollments.  
Together, these categories involve the apparently willful and repeated violations of Sections 54.405, 
54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the Commission’s Rules.168  We find that these apparent violations 
occurred, at a minimum, beginning in January 2014, continued through TCM’s subsequent Form 497 
revisions for the relevant states, and continued for at least 2,587 duplicate TCM consumers that remained 
in NLAD as of the April 2015 data month.  We propose a forfeiture for these apparent violations of 
$51,070,322.169     
A. Proposed Forfeiture for TCM’s Apparent Enrollment and Claims for 
Reimbursement for Many Duplicate and Ineligible Consumers and for Failing to 
Have Adequate Policies and Procedures to Ensure Lifeline Eligibility in Violation of 
Lifeline Program Rules   
86. In this NAL, we address the harm that TCM’s apparent conduct has caused to the 
Universal Service Fund.  In particular, the Commission in recent years has increased its emphasis on 
ETCs’ responsibilities for preventing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program.170  When an ETC 
                                                     
165 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); 47 CFR § 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. § 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. § 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).  
166 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E). 
167 See 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8); Note to Paragraph (b)(8): Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures.   
168 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D); 47 CFR §§ 1.80(a)(5), 54.405, 54.407, 54.409, 54.410. 
169 This forfeiture is less than the statutory maximum allowed for the continuing violations cited in this NAL. 
170 See, e.g., Easy Tel. Servs., 28 FCC Rcd 14433 (2013). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 25 
submits a request for Lifeline reimbursement that it knew or should have known includes ineligible 
consumers, it receives more reimbursement from the Fund than the amount to which it is properly 
entitled, undermining the low-income support reimbursement mechanism.  The Commission believes that 
the imposition of a significant forfeiture amount is a necessary response to Lifeline over-collection 
violations.171  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 over-collection 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.   
87. In this case, while we find apparent violations tied to the submission of specific forms 
requesting improper reimbursement,172 our consideration of an appropriate forfeiture must encompass a 
broader scope.  The character of TCM’s misconduct is even more egregious than non-compliance with the 
Commission’s Rules or over-collection.  TCM has demonstrated no regard for the truthfulness of its 
representations to USAC and the Commission.  Several TCM employees on multiple occasions raised the 
issue of sales agents enrolling several Lifeline consumers with the same SNAP card.  TCM employees 
identified and reported improperly enrolled consumer names to management, while also repeatedly 
describing the conduct of relevant sales agents as “ ” in emails.  No less than 182 TCM Lifeline 
consumers were specifically identified by TCM employees as having been enrolled through the misuse of 
eligibility documents.  In response, TCM management took no immediate steps to de-enroll the ineligible 
consumers but instead submitted Form 497 reimbursement requests to USAC for the very same 
consumers they had been told were ineligible for Lifeline enrollment, then certified on the Form 497 to 
the truthfulness of their false representation, and failed to de-enroll more than 2,500 of the duplicate 
consumers specifically identified by USAC.  Furthermore, we look to the specific causes of the improper 
claims, which appear to be a widespread pattern of deliberate disregard for the Lifeline eligibility 
Rules.173  The very nature of this widespread conduct, concerning both duplicates and ineligible 
consumers, makes it nearly impossible for the Commission to identify and ferret out every duplicate or 
ineligible consumer.174  The Commission should not be required to re-check and re-verify every 
consumer, when it is the carrier’s unique responsibility to do so in the first place, a responsibility that has 
been apparently abandoned by TCM.175  Rather, in proposing a forfeiture the Commission is entitled to 
make reasonable estimates of the likely effects of the improper practices in the Commission’s substantial 
discretion in imposing forfeitures.176   
88. In developing an appropriate forfeiture based on the specifics of this case, we draw on 
prior proposed forfeitures for apparent Lifeline violations.  In the Lifeline In-Depth Validation (IDV) 
NALs, the Commission proposed (but has not adopted) forfeitures applying a three-part forfeiture 
methodology: (1) a base forfeiture of $20,000 for each instance in which an ETC files a Form 497 that 
includes ineligible or duplicate consumers in the line count; (2) a base forfeiture of $5,000 for each 
ineligible or duplicate consumer for whom the ETC requests and/or receives support from the USF; and 
(3) an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture equal to three times the reimbursement requested and/or 
                                                     
171 Id. 
172 See supra Sections III.A, III.B, III.D, IV.A. 
173 Id. 
174 Id. 
175 See supra Sections II.B.1, III.A, III.B, III.D, IV.A. 
176 See, e.g., InPhonic, Inc., Order of Forfeiture and Further Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 
8689, 8699, para. 24 (2007); Globcom, Inc. Order of Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4710, 4723–24, paras. 36–37 (2006). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 26 
received by the ETC for ineligible or duplicate consumers.177  These proposed forfeitures were based on 
the USAC IDV audits, which investigated potential duplicate consumers, often for a single month, and 
which pre-dated the NLAD.  Each USAC audit identified the specific duplicate consumers. 
89. We retain the IDV proposal of $20,000 per Form 497 that sought reimbursement for 
duplicate or ineligible consumers.  We apply this to each original Form 497,178 each of which is a separate 
and continuing violation, for each state where USAC found duplicates, including Arizona, Hawaii, 
Michigan, Louisiana, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Utah, Washington State, Nevada, and 
Wisconsin.179  This totals 126 forms for a proposed base forfeiture of $2,520,000.   
90. We retain the IDV proposal of $5,000 for each ineligible or duplicate consumer for 
whom the ETC requests and/or received support from the USF, which applied to each such consumer that 
could be identified in the prior year.  We apply this to each of the 2,587 duplicate consumers TCM failed 
to de-enroll as of April 26, 2015, for an additional forfeiture of $12,935,000. 
91. We retain the IDV proposal of an upward adjustment totaling three times the harm 
suffered by the Fund.  However, because of the nature of the apparent violations, and TCM’s failure to 
timely and completely produce eligibility documentation that would have assisted in further identifying 
and focusing with greater particularity the number of improperly enrolled ineligible consumers, we must 
approximate the harm.  We are faced with multiple apparent violations that can in many cases overlap.180  
A duplicate consumer could also be ineligible based on use of inappropriate eligibility documents.181  The 
same inappropriate eligibility document – such as a SNAP card – could be used for multiple, separate 
consumers which are not duplicates, but have not demonstrated eligibility.182  A phantom consumer may 
or may not qualify as eligible, but the person has not sought participation in the program and the 
consumer certification has been falsified.183  To arrive at an estimate of the harm, we consider all the 
evidence presented in this NAL and specifically note the following factors.   
92. In the fourth quarter of 2014, almost 100 percent of TCM’s enrollments were the result of 
an override of the third-party identification verification system.184  Thus, one could assume that none of 
TCM’s consumers as of that time had been properly verified, and thus the Fund should not have 
reimbursed TCM for any of those consumers.  It is likely, however, that at least some of TCM’s 
consumers were eligible and not duplicates, and that their identity could have been verified if TCM had 
not overridden the system.  We decline to assume that 100 percent of TCM’s reimbursements were 
unwarranted. 
93. In the sample of Colorado eligibility data, SNAP cards were used to show eligibility for 
 percent of applicants.185  Five separate TCM sales agents from different geographic regions described 
how SNAP cards were improperly used to show eligibility.186  Sales agents described seeing managers 
                                                     
177 See, e.g., Budget Prepay, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 2508 (2014). 
178 See Appendix E. 
179 We do not propose a forfeiture for each Form 497 wherein TCM made revisions.  To do so would discourage 
companies from revising their forms, because the penalty per incorrect form would often exceed the amount of any 
correction.   
180 See supra Sections III.A, III.B, III.D, IV.A. 
181 Id. 
182 Id. 
183 Id. 
184 See supra Sections III.A.1, IV.A. 
185 See supra Sections III.A.4, IV.A. 
186 Id. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 27 
possessing “stacks” of SNAP cards to serve as false eligibility documents, and how SNAP cards were 
purchased by agents to use for eligibility.187  Furthermore, a TCM sales agent directly told an undercover 
Commission employee that s/he did not need to show eligibility, because that sales agent had extra SNAP 
cards.188  Thus, one could assume that all eligibility demonstrated by SNAP cards was improper, and 
based on the Colorado eligibility documents,  percent of TCM’s enrollments could have false eligibility 
documents.  However, it is likely that at least some use of SNAP cards was valid, and thus we decline to 
assume that  percent of TCM’s reimbursements were unwarranted. 
94.  percent of the SNAP cards in the Colorado data sample were used more than once.189 
These uses appear clearly improper.  However, identifying duplicate SNAP cards does not take into 
account the use of false SNAP cards.  For instance, a sales agent with a stack of 200 SNAP cards could 
use each one only once, for 200 separate consumers, and it would never appear as a duplicate eligibility 
document.190  Thus, to assume that only  percent of TCM’s enrollments were ineligible would be a 
conservative assumption.   
95. Turning to duplicates, we note that  percent of TCM’s enrollments in Michigan during 
2013-2014 were duplicates, which is the highest percentage of any state.191  Fully  percent of TCM’s 
consumers across 13 states were identified by USAC as duplicates.192  However, even after USAC 
concretely identified each duplicate for TCM and gave it an opportunity to correct its enrollments, TCM 
was unwilling or unable to do so.193  For Michigan for June 2014, TCM has increased, rather than 
decreased, its request for reimbursement, despite that fact that USAC found over 3,000 duplicates 
enrolled initially in June 2014 alone.194  Additionally, 2,587 duplicate TCM consumers remained in 
NLAD at least five months after TCM was alerted to these specific duplicate consumers by USAC.195  
TCM’s lack of policies and procedures concerning duplicates gives the Commission little confidence that 
TCM does not still have large numbers of duplicates, even beyond the 32,498 that USAC found in 
November 2014.   
96. Beyond these specific issues, TCM’s apparent lack of eligibility policies and procedures, 
including its apparent violation of its own Compliance Plan, damaged the Fund nationwide, because it 
decreased the overall integrity of the program, and allowed additional improper enrollments.196  An 
example of this is TCM Sales Agent-N, who apparently had enrolled Victim-A (whose identity s/he had 
stolen) in the Lifeline program 10 separate times, and in addition, enrolled him/herself, at least 12 
times.197     
97. Based on the total record before us, we find it reasonable to conclude that the Fund has 
been harmed by an amount equal to at least 16 percent of TCM’s requests for reimbursement from the 
Fund from 2014 through March 2016.  This assumes that  percent of TCM’s consumer base were 
                                                     
187 Id. 
188 Id. 
189 See supra Sections III.E, IV.A. 
190 See supra Sections III.A.4, IV.A. 
191 See supra Sections III.A, III.D, IV.A. 
192 Id. 
193 Id. 
194 Id. 
195 Id. 
196 See supra Sections II.B.1, III.A, III.B, III.C, IV.A. 
197 See supra Sections III.B.5, IV.A. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 28 
duplicates and that an additional  percent had false eligibility documents, which are conservative 
estimates as described above.  While these percentages are derived from specific data sets that do not 
cover all 19 states and territories where TCM operates, TCM’s failure to implement adequate policies and 
procedures nationwide, as well as the inherent difficulties with identifying phantom consumers and other 
eligibility issues, makes this a reasonable estimation.  Should TCM choose to contest this NAL, it may 
respond with detailed evidence rebutting this estimate.   
98. From January 2014 through March 2016, TCM received a total of $60,865,254 in 
reimbursements from the Fund.198  Based on a loss to the Fund of $9,738,440.64 (16 percent of the total), 
we propose an upward adjustment of $29,215,322, which is three times that amount.   
99. We propose upward adjustments under the factors set forth in Section 503(b) of the Act 
and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, which provide that we may adjust a forfeiture upward for violations that 
are egregious, intentional, or repeated, or that cause substantial harm or generate substantial economic 
gain for the violator.  We propose an additional upward adjustment for TCM’s apparent failure to meet its 
obligations under its Compliance Plan.  As a condition for receiving Lifeline reimbursements in 
connection with the Lifeline program, TCM submitted its Compliance Plan to the Commission in or about 
May 2012, which the Commission later approved.  Based on the Investigation and findings above, TCM 
has apparently failed to comply with its obligations under its own Compliance Plan.199  Therefore, we 
propose an additional upward adjustment of $100,000. 
100. We propose a further upward adjustment of $6,300,000 in light of TCM’s egregious 
conduct related to two upward revisions of its Form 497s for Michigan and two upward revisions of its 
Form 497s for Ohio for the June 2014 data month.200  TCM made these four upward revisions even after it 
was alerted as to the existence of significant numbers of duplicate enrollments in Michigan and Ohio for 
that month.  As such, despite this notice, TCM claimed more consumers and requested more USF funds 
than it had in its original Form 497s.  Therefore, we propose an additional upward adjustment to the 
statutory maximum of $1,575,000 for each of those four revised Form 497s. 
101. This forfeiture structure for apparent Lifeline violations will in no way foreclose the 
Commission or any other governmental entity from taking additional enforcement action and imposing 
additional forfeitures for other apparent violations of the Lifeline Rules.  Moreover, the Commission 
clarifies that the penalties that result from this forfeiture structure are separate from any amounts that an 
ETC may be required to refund to USAC in order to make the Fund whole. 
102. In addition, in light of TCM’s egregious misconduct and the demonstrated harm to the 
Fund from the apparent violations, we order TCM to submit a report and explain why the Commission 
should not (1) order USAC to suspend all Lifeline reimbursements to TCM; (2) revoke approval of 
TCM’s ETC compliance plan; and (3) initiate proceedings against TCM to revoke its Commission 
authorizations.  TCM shall have 30 days to respond to this request.   
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 
103. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and 1.80 of 
the Rules,201 Total Call Mobile, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A 
                                                     
198 Some of the requests have not been paid by USAC because the Commission directed USAC to withhold funding 
from TCM.  TCM may offset any withheld funds against the total forfeiture.   
199 See supra Sections III.C, IV.A.   
200 See Appendix E. 
201 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 CFR § 1.80. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 29 
TOTAL FORFEITURE in the amount of $51,070,322 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating 
Sections 54.405, 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the Rules.202  
104. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,203 within 
thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 
TCM SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement 
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with paragraphs 106 and 107 
below. 
105. 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.  TCM shall also send 
electronic notification of payment to Loyaan Egal at Loyaan.Egal@fcc.gov, to Rakesh Patel at 
Rakesh.Patel@fcc.gov, and to David M. Sobotkin at David.Sobotkin@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.204  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, S.W., 
Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.  20554.205  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.    
106. 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.206  The written statement must be mailed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 
                                                     
202 47 CFR §§ 54.407, 54.409, 54.410. 
203 47 CFR § 1.80. 
204 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf. 
205 See 47 CFR § 1.1914. 
206 47 CFR §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 30 
referenced in the caption.  The written statement shall also be emailed to Loyaan.Egal@fcc.gov, 
Rakesh.Patel@fcc.gov, and David.Sobotkin@fcc.gov. 
107. 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.   
108. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TCM shall respond to the request in paragraph 102 
within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and 
Order. 
109. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and first class mail to Satoru Manabe, 
Chief Executive Officer, Total Call Mobile, Inc., 1411 W. 190th Street, Gardena, CA 90248.  
 
     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
 
 
 
     Marlene H. Dortch 
     Secretary




 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 35 
 
 
APPENDIX E 
 
Original and Revised Form 497s 
 
 
State 
(No. of 
Original 
Forms) 
 
Data Months 
(Dates of Original and Revised Form 497s) 
Arizona  
(9) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 9/17/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
Colorado  
(11) 
Jan. 2014 (original 2/10/14; revised 5/5/14, 9/12/14, 2/20/15, 4/7/15, 7/13/15) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/7/14; revised 5/5/14, 9/12/14, 2/20/15, 4/7/15, 7/13/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 9/17/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/15/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 8/26/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
Hawaii  
(10) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/7/14; revised 5/5/14, 10/1/14, 4/7/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 10/1/14, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 4/8/15, 7/15/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 36 
 
 
State 
(No. of 
Original 
Forms) 
 
Data Months 
(Dates of Original and Revised Form 497s) 
Iowa  
(7) 
May 2014 (original 6/4/14; revised 2/2/15, 4/8/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 8/26/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
Kansas  
(10) 
Jan. 2014 (original 2/10/14; revised 5/5/14, 2/13/15, 7/13/15) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/7/14; revised 5/5/14, 9/12/14, 2/20/15, 4/7/15, 7/13/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 9/17/14, 2/20/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
Louisiana 
(10) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/5/14; revised 9/12/14, 2/20/15, 7/13/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 9/17/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/15/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 12/16/14, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 37 
 
State 
(No. of 
Original 
Forms) 
 
Data Months 
(Dates of Original and Revised Form 497s) 
Michigan  
(16) 
Jan. 2014 (original 2/10/14; revised 5/5/14, 2/13/15, 7/13/15) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/7/14; revised 5/5/14, 9/12/14, 2/20/15, 7/13/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 9/17/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/15/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 8/26/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Dec. 2014 (original 1/8/15; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Jan. 2015 (original 2/9/15; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Feb. 2015 (original 3/9/15; revised 7/23/15) 
Mar. 2015 (original 4/8/15; revised 7/23/15) 
Apr. 2015 (original 5/8/15) 
 
Missouri 
(10) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/7/14; revised 9/12/14, 2/20/15, 4/7/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 9/17/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/15/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 8/26/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/13/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
Nevada 
(11) 
Jan. 2014 (original 2/10/14; revised 5/5/14, 2/13/15, 4/7/15, 7/13/15) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/7/14; revised 9/12/14, 5/5/14, 2/20/15, 4/7/15, 7/13/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 9/17/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/15/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 38 
 
State 
(No. of 
Original 
Forms) 
 
Data Months 
(Dates of Original and Revised Form 497s) 
Ohio 
(11) 
Jan. 2014 (original 2/10/14; revised 5/5/14, 2/13/15, 4/7/15) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/15/15, 7/13/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 9/17/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/15/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 8/26/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/13/15) 
 
Utah 
(10) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/7/14; revised 5/5/14, 9/12/14, 2/20/15, 4/7/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 9/17/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 8/7/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/15/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
Washington 
(6) 
Jun. 2014 (original 8/6/14; revised 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/6/14; revised 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Nov. 2014 (original 12/8/14; revised 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
Wisconsin 
(9) 
Feb. 2014 (original 3/7/14; revised 5/5/14, 10/1/14, 2/20/15, 4/7/15) 
Mar. 2014 (original 4/8/14; revised 10/1/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
Apr. 2014 (original 5/8/14; revised 10/1/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/13/15) 
May 2014 (original 6/6/14; revised 10/1/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/15/15) 
Jun. 2014 (original 7/8/14; revised 8/26/14, 10/1/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Jul. 2014 (original 8/7/14; revised 10/1/14, 2/20/15, 4/8/15, 7/23/15) 
Aug. 2014 (original 9/8/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Sept. 2014 (original 10/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
Oct. 2014 (original 11/7/14; revised 2/20/15, 4/24/15, 7/23/15) 
 
 
 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 39 
 
 
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON CLYBURN  
APPROVING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN PART 
 
Re:  Total Call Mobile, Inc. File No.: EB-IHD-14-00017650 
  
 Total Call Mobile’s actions were, in a word, reprehensible, which is why I support taking decisive 
enforcement action. This provider has not only violated our rules but also the trust of American 
consumers who contribute to the universal service fund.  Today’s Notice of Apparent Liability finds that 
Total Call Mobile enrolled the same consumers multiple times, without the customers’ knowledge, by 
making slight changes to each consumer’s identifying information.  This is fraud, plain and simple and 
represents the very reason why the Commission just voted to eliminate Lifeline providers from 
determining a customer’s eligibility.  Preventing any provider from ever doing this again is why I 
advocated for the establishment of a neutral third party verifier to prevent such fraud in the future.  
 
Providers that show such blatant disregard for our rules should not be part of the Lifeline 
program. I therefore support the decision to require Total Call Mobile submit a report and explain why the 
Commission should not revoke Total Call Mobile’s compliance plan and suspend any future Lifeline 
payments to this company.      
 
Given the egregious nature of the alleged conduct, I believe a more significant forfeiture would 
have been appropriate. The Commission cannot tolerate such abuse and must send a strong signal that 
providers that violate our rules will face significant consequences.  I therefore vote to approve in part and 
concur in part.       
  
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 40 
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI, 
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART 
Re: Total Call Mobile, Inc., File No.: EB-IHD-14-00017650, NAL/Acct. No. 201632080004. 
Beth, Alan, and David were sales agents for Total Call Mobile.1  Beth specialized in signing up 
ineligible consumers using false credentials.2  Her supervisor told her to get a blank food stamp card, i.e., 
a temporary Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) card, to use as eligibility documentation 
for applicants already in the system.3  Her supervisors had stacks in excess of 200 SNAP cards that the 
managers had purchased on the street.  She was told to rotate the use of temporary SNAP cards to ensure 
that applicants could repeatedly sign up for phones.  She also worked side by side with other Lifeline 
carriers to increase the number of applicants each sales agent could sign up. 
Alan specialized in manipulating the application process.4  He took photos of an applicant’s 
SNAP card and used that information to activate numerous customers, changing only the last four digits 
of the applicant’s Social Security number.  His supervisor used an app to generate legitimate Social 
Security numbers to aid the process, and Total Call Mobile’s back-end staff would verify the application 
even if the name on the SNAP card was not the applicant’s name.  Alan also knew that the system would 
approve a customer for multiple Lifeline subsidies so long as he entered the information on different 
devices within a 15-minute window—and he coordinated with the sales agents of other Lifeline carriers to 
sign up applicants up to four times. 
David specialized in getting customers multiple phones.5  His supervisor told him to change an 
applicant’s last name if it came back duplicate and keep changing it until it’s accepted.  He filled out 
applications, checking off the boxes he knew applicants needed to check to enroll.  He signed on their 
behalf; his supervisor told him to match the signature on the applicant’s identification as closely as 
possible.  Another supervisor showed him how to sign up applicants for three phones apiece and how to 
use nail polish remover to remove identification information from a SNAP card.  Total Call Mobile’s 
back-end staff facilitated David’s work, explaining how to cover expiration dates on eligibility 
documentation or alter a person’s name to get through the review process. 
Beth, Alan, and David were not alone.  Nathan used his own identification as well as a stolen 
driver’s license to sign up for service at least 22 times.6  Fred enrolled an undercover FCC employee in 
the program even though the FCC employee had no identification or eligibility documentation.7  Other 
sales agents used the address of a local homeless shelter to enroll hundreds of applicants multiple times.8  
In November 2014, the Universal Service Administrative Company was able to identify 32,498 intra-
company duplicate subscribers enrolled by over 800 Total Call Mobile sales agents.9  And during that 
same quarter, Total Call Mobile bypassed the National Lifeline Accountability Database’s internal 
                                                     
1 The names of all sales agents have been changed to protect their identity. 
2 See Sales Agent B Exhibit; Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 37. 
3 Temporary SNAP cards lack information identifying the cardholder. 
4 See Sales Agent A Exhibit. 
5 See Sales Agent D Exhibit. 
6 See Notice of Apparent Liability at paras. 48–51, 96. 
7 See Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 43. 
8 See Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 45. 
9 See Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 17; TCM-EB-000000868. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44 
 
 41 
safeguards for 99.8% of its newly enrolled subscribers.10  No wonder that Total Call Mobile’s own 
employees described the company’s practices as fraud. 
I agree with my colleagues that Total Call Mobile apparently and repeatedly violated federal law.  
And I appreciate that my colleagues acceded to my request that we order Total Call Mobile to explain 
why we should not suspend all Lifeline payments to the company, revoke its ability to participate in the 
Lifeline program, and end its authorization to offer telephone service entirely.11 
But I am disappointed that we do not—and to some extent cannot—sanction Total Call Mobile 
for all of its wrongful conduct.  Even though USAC identified 32,498 intra-company duplicates, we 
pursue only 2,587.12  Even though we have evidence that Total Call Mobile bypassed federal safeguards 
to enroll 99.8% of its subscribers, we hold the company liable for only 16%.13  Under these 
circumstances, our precedent suggests that a forfeiture of at least $84,295,910 would have been 
appropriate.14  Yet the Commission settles for something much less. 
One reason:  Even though USAC discovered the intra-company duplicates in November 2014 and 
even though our investigation had largely concluded by mid-2015, the Chairman’s office kept this Notice 
of Apparent Liability on hold until March 2016—long after the one-year statute of limitations had passed 
for most of those apparent violations.  Even then, Commissioners were told that the Notice of Apparent 
Liability could not be released or publicly discussed until April 1, 2016, conveniently one day after the 
Commission was scheduled to expand the Lifeline program to broadband.  That’s not right. 
Another:  The Notice of Apparent Liability repeatedly gives Total Call Mobile the benefit of the 
doubt.  For example, it treats less than 10% of Total Call Mobile’s subscribers as likely ineligible when 
we have evidence that up to 99.8% were.  Using that metric of likely ineligibility (one Total Call Mobile 
refused to rebut by withholding information in response to Commission subpoenas15) would yield a 
forfeiture amount of roughly $84 million, in line with what we should have proposed two years ago. 
Instead, the Commission proposes a forfeiture of only $51,070,322,16 which is not even a third 
more than the $38,933,139 that Total Call Mobile has collected from the Universal Service Fund since its 
misdeeds were exposed by USAC.  That’s hardly the type of justice the American people deserve given 
the sheer magnitude of misconduct at issue, and I accordingly dissent in part. 
  
                                                     
10 See Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 27; Information on file in EB-IHD-14-00017650. 
11 See Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 102. 
12 See Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 95. 
13 See Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 97. 
14 Conservatively assuming that one out of every two intra-company duplicates was an eligible, non-duplicate 
subscriber, the forfeiture would be at least 16,249 x $5,000 + 16,249 x $9.25 x 3 + 130 x $20,000 = $84,295,910. 
15 Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 68. 
16 Notice of Apparent Liability at para. 103. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-44  
 
 42 
 
 
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY 
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART 
 
Re: Total Call Mobile, Inc., File No.:  EB-IHD-14-00017650 
 
 I support initiating a Notice of Apparent Liability against Total Call Mobile because I am greatly 
troubled by what appears to be an intentional and widespread effort to enroll duplicate and ineligible 
consumers into the Lifeline program.  I am particularly concerned that the company was allegedly able to 
use temporary Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cards to enroll consumers that were 
not actually eligible for subsides.  The item notes that agents purchased and managers possessed “stacks” 
of SNAP cards to serve as false eligibility documents.  This is deeply disturbing. 
 
According, while not the subject of this item, I must once again lodge my extreme frustration that 
the Commission continues to rely on SNAP as an entry point in the Lifeline program, and has the gall to 
claim that it is a highly accountable program, when it is painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that 
SNAP is riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse.  Some have claimed that moving to a National Lifeline 
Eligibility Verifier will help clean up fraud in the Lifeline program.  However, it will be years before the 
National Verifier is operational and, even then, the Lifeline program will continue to be marred by 
underlying fraud in the SNAP program.  At best, we will be throwing good money after bad.   
  
I dissent in part because, once again, the Commission goes down the path of proposing a very 
large fine that does not appear to be fully supported by the law and Commission precedent.  In particular, 
I have questions about whether all of the conduct falls within the statute of limitations period.  Perhaps it 
eases the conscience of a Commission that is in the process of greatly expanding the size of the Lifeline 
program to be able to point to aggressive enforcement actions and hefty fines.  But if everything alleged 
in this document is true, than an FCC fine of any amount should be the least of the company’s concerns.  
Let’s just stick to the law and facts.