******************************************************** 
                      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 16-98
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
In the Matter of 
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, 
d/b/a AT&T Southeast 
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.: EB-IHD-14-00017954 
NAL/Acct. No.: 201632080007 
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE 
Adopted:  July 27, 2016 Released:  July 27, 2016 
By the Commission: Commissioner Pai Dissenting and issuing a statement; Commissioner O’Rielly 
Dissenting. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Heading Paragraph # 
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 3
A. The E-rate Program and LCP Requirement ..................................................................................... 3 
B. The Commission’s Investigation ..................................................................................................... 6 
III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 28
A. Legal Framework of the LCP Requirement ................................................................................... 29 
B. AT&T Apparently Violated the LCP Requirement ....................................................................... 35 
1. AT&T Failed to Charge One-Year Contract Prices ................................................................ 38
2. AT&T Charged the Districts Rates Higher than the SUNCOM E-rate Contract .................... 41
3. AT&T’s Pricing Policies Apparently Do Not Lead to LCP Requirement Compliant
Prices ....................................................................................................................................... 45 
4. AT&T’s Arguments Do Not Justify Its Failure to Comply with the LCP Requirement ......... 53
IV. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 60
V. COMPLIANCE AND PROPOSED FORFEITURE ............................................................................ 63 
VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 72
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ....................................................................................................................... 73
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. We propose a penalty of $106,425 against BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, d/b/a
AT&T Southeast (AT&T or the Company) for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating the 
Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended, and the Commission’s rules by failing to charge legally 
mandated lower prices to two school districts in Florida — Orange County Public Schools (Orange 
County) and Dixie District Schools (Dixie County) (collectively, Districts).  The Districts are participants 
in the Universal Service Schools and Libraries Universal Support Program, commonly referred to as the 
E-rate Program.  Since its inception, the E-rate Program has been instrumental in providing our nation’s 
schools and libraries with access to essential communications services.  Providers that offer services to E-
rate eligible schools and libraries must adhere to specific pricing requirements, which provide that “[a]ll 
telecommunications carriers serving a geographic area shall . . . provide such services to elementary 
schools, secondary schools, and libraries for educational purposes at rates less than the amounts charged 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
2 
for similar services to other parties.”1 This requirement is designed to ensure that the schools and libraries 
who participate in the E-rate program receive fair, competitive rates and that public funds are disbursed 
efficiently to support these services. 
2. Rather than charge public schools and libraries lower prices, as AT&T was obligated to
do, it charged the Districts some of the highest prices in the state over a number of years for basic 
telephone services.  Each year, after apparently charging these unlawfully high prices, AT&T certified or 
submitted forms to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), the administrator of the E-
rate Program, inaccurately claiming that it complied with the Commission’s rules.  On the basis of these 
forms, AT&T received public funds from the Universal Service Fund (Fund) to subsidize high-priced 
services provided by AT&T to the Districts.  Not only did AT&T apparently cause direct harm to the 
Districts from years of excessively high prices, AT&T also undermined the effectiveness of the E-rate 
Program by depleting limited public funds that could have supplied other schools and libraries with 
access to crucial learning technologies and services.   
II. BACKGROUND
A. The E-rate Program and LCP Requirement 
3. Congress has charged the Commission with promoting universal access to advanced
telecommunications and information services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates.2  Pursuant to the 
Act and our rules, every interstate telecommunications carrier must contribute a portion of its quarterly 
interstate and international telecommunications revenue to the Fund.3  The Commission appointed USAC 
to administer the Fund,4 and to use the monies collected to support low-cost telecommunications services 
to schools, libraries, health-care providers, low-income consumers, and subscribers in high cost-areas.5  
4. The E-rate Program enables eligible schools, libraries, and consortia of eligible schools
and libraries to receive discounts on telecommunications services, Internet access, internal connections, 
basic maintenance costs, and managed internal broadband services.6  The program subsidizes the cost of 
these services with money from the Fund.7  The Commission has emphasized its commitment to 
maximizing cost-effectiveness of spending for E-rate supported purchases, reducing improper E-rate 
payments, and combating waste, fraud, and abuse in the E-rate Program.8  As the Commission explained in 
the 2014 E-rate Modernization Order, “[e]very dollar spent inefficiently for E-rate supported services is 
one less dollar available to meet schools’ and libraries’ broadband connectivity needs.”9 
1 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B) (“All telecommunications carriers serving a geographic area shall, upon a bona fide 
request for any of its services that are within the definition of universal service under subsection (c)(3) of this 
section, provide such services to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries for educational purposes at 
rates less than the amounts charged for similar services to other parties.”). 
2 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104 § 254, 110 Stat. 56, 71–75. 
3 See 47 U.S.C. § 254; 47 CFR §§ 54.706, 54.709. 
4 47 CFR § 54.701(a). 
5 47 U.S.C. § 254(b); 47 CFR § 54.701(c). 
6 See 47 CFR § 54.502 (identifying E-rate eligible services, including Telecommunications, Telecommunications 
Services, Internet access, internal connections, basic maintenance and managed internal broadband services); see 
also http://www.usac.org/sl/applicants/beforeyoubeginleligible-services-list.aspx (last visited February 2, 2016). 
7 See 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B); Fed.-State Joint Bd. on Universal Serv., Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9082 
paras. 583-584 (1997) (Universal Service First Report and Order). 
8  Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8870, 8890–91, paras. 50–54 (2014) (E-rate Modernization Order). 
9 E-rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8934, para. 155. 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
3 
5. To address concerns about effective price competition, Congress included a provision in
the Act that requires telecommunications carriers to “provide such services to elementary schools, 
secondary schools, and libraries for educational purposes at rates less than the amounts charged for 
similar services to other parties.”10  To implement this provision, the Commission established the “Lowest 
Corresponding Price,” or LCP, Rule as a condition of participation in the E-rate Program.  The Rule 
prohibits service providers from submitting bids for or charging E-rate eligible entities prices that exceed 
the “lowest corresponding price” offered by the company to similarly situated customers.11  The statutory 
provision and corresponding Rule, which we refer to collectively as the “LCP Requirement,” “ensure[s] 
that inexperience does not prevent schools and libraries from receiving competitive prices, [and] service 
providers must offer services to eligible schools and libraries at prices no higher than the lowest price the 
provider charges to similarly situated non-residential customers for similar services.”12  The LCP 
Requirement does not place the burden of asking or negotiating for lowest corresponding prices on the 
school – it requires the service provider to affirmatively submit bids for and charge prices compliant with 
the LCP Requirement.13 
B. The Commission’s Investigation 
6. The Orange County School District covers the area including and surrounding Orlando,
Florida.  As of the 2014–2015 school year, Orange County had an enrollment of 190,341 students, 
making it the 11th largest school district in the United States.14  The school district had 184 schools as of 
the 2013–14 school year including elementary, middle, and high schools and exceptional education 
centers.15  The Dixie School District covers schools in Dixie County, a rural area west of Gainesville, 
Florida.  It currently includes five schools including elementary, middle, and high schools and an adult 
learning center.16        
7. The Company, together with its parent organization AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Inc.’s
subsidiaries, is one of the largest providers of landline telecommunications services in the United States 
and one of the largest providers of E-rate-supported services, receiving more than $1.23 billion in 
10 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B). 
11 47 CFR § 54.511(b); see also Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9031, 9033, paras. 484, 
488; E-rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8943–44, paras. 184–85. While the LCP Requirement does not 
expressly mention an obligation to “offer” eligible entities the lowest corresponding price, this obligation was 
articulated in the Universal Service First Report and Order where the Commission described the LCP Requirement 
as requiring service providers to “offer” services at the lowest corresponding price.  See Universal Service First 
Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9031–32, para. 484. This means that providers must both: (i) submit bids to 
applicants at prices no higher than the lowest price they charge to similarly-situated non-residential customers for 
similar services; and (ii) charge applicants a price no higher than the lowest corresponding price.  E-rate 
Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8944, para. 185. 
12 Fed.-State Joint Bd. on Universal Serv. Changes to the Bd. of Directors of the Nat'l Exch. Carrier Ass'n, Inc., 
Fourth Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 5318, 5398, para 133 (1997) (Fourth Order on Reconsideration); see 
also Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9031-32, paras. 484-485 (“[E]ligible schools and 
libraries can take advantage of any cost-based rates that other customers may have negotiated with carriers during a 
period when the market was subject to actual, or even potential, competition.”); see also 141 Cong. Rec. S7972-03, 
141 Cong. Rec. S7972-03, 1995 WL 340416 (“Our part of the bill on this is not intended to give something away for 
nothing. It merely assures financially strapped public institutions like libraries and schools will get affordable rates 
for access.”).   
13 E-rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8943–44, paras. 183–85. 
14 See https://www.ocps.net/fs/budget/Documents/16%20Adopted%20Budget%20Summary.pdf (last visited 
December 25, 2015). 
15 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County_Public_Schools (last visited December 25, 2015). 
16 See http://www.dixie.k12.fl.us/ (last visited December 25, 2015). 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
4 
payments from the Fund as a result of their participation in the E-rate program from July 2012 to June 
2015.17  AT&T claims to provide “a complete range of E-rate eligible services including voice, data, 
network, wireless, Internet, video and more to meet your needs.  We can help you understand the E-rate 
program and how to maximize your benefits.”18  AT&T has provided E-rate supported services to schools 
and libraries in Florida since the E-rate Program’s inception in 1998.19          
8. Since at least 1998 and through the 2014 funding year, AT&T has provided E-rate
supported services to Orange County and Dixie County.20  USAC’s records demonstrate that the Fund 
disbursed at least $789,542 for services provided to the Districts by AT&T between the 2012 and 2014 
funding years.21  We focused our investigation on two particular telephone services called non-Centrex 
Primary Rate Interface Integrated Services Digital Network (PRI)22 and business flat-rate multiline 
(MFB), which are both common enterprise landline telephone services.   PRI is composed of three 
services which are usually purchased together; for simplicity we refer to them as PRI Service 1, 2 and 3. 
9. As we discuss in greater detail below, the record reflects that at least since July 2012,
AT&T charged Orange County and Dixie County prices for PRI and/or MFB service that were many 
times higher than other customers.  The Districts were paying significantly higher prices than other 
business customers in Florida, including other customers receiving the same MFB and PRI services on 
the same one-year length of service as the Districts.23  The Districts were also paying prices for PRI that 
were many times higher than the rates available in a state-wide contract that all schools and libraries in 
Florida, including the Districts here, were eligible to order from.  These dramatic price differences 
underpin our finding that AT&T violated the LCP Requirement.  
10. Services Ordered and Prices Paid by the Districts. From at least July 2012 through June
2015, AT&T provided PRI and/or MFB services to the Districts.24  The Districts did not seek 
17 See http://www.slforms.universalservice.org/drt/default.aspx (last visited February 2, 2016).  The E-rate funding 
year runs from July-June, i.e., the 2012 funding year runs from July 2012-June 2013.  Disbursements by the Fund 
can be made after the close of the funding year.  For instance, 2012 funding could be disbursed after July 2013.  
18 See http://www.corp.att.com/erate/ (last visited February 2, 2016). 
19 See http://www.slforms.universalservice.org/drt/default.aspx; Letter from Terri L. Hoskins, General Attorney, 
AT&T Services Inc., to Gregory Simon, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement 
Bureau, and Pam Slipakoff, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, at 
Attach. 1, Response No. 2(b), p. 2 (Feb. 4, 2015) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (AT&T LOI Response). 
20 See http://www.slforms.universalservice.org/drt/default.aspx; see also Email from Thomas Ranallo, President, 
Troy & Banks, to Jia-Ming Shang, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement 
Bureau, et. al. and Attachment. “July 2014.pdf” (April 19, 2016, 15:54 EDT) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) 
(Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email); AT&T LOI Response Nos. 4(a) and 5(a), pgs. 3-5. 
21 AT&T LOI Response 4(d) and 5(d), pgs. 4-6; see also http://www.slforms.universalservice.org/drt/default.aspx. 
22 PRI is a service bundle comprised of three components that are usually purchased together: PRI Non-Dist 
Sensitive Mileage (Service 1), PRI Voice/Data Interface (Service 2), and B channel, voice/data (standard) (Service 
3). One line of PRI service typically contains 23 items of “B-channel” service, which is what Orange County 
received.  Dixie County had 10 “B-channels.” See Email from Terri Hoskins, General Regulatory, AT&T Services 
Inc., to Gregory Simon, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, et. al. 
Attach. “Answers to EB 061815 Questions final 070915.pdf” Attach. C, D and E (July 9, 2015, 17:18 EDT) (on file 
in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (AT&T July 9, 2015 Email).   
23 See Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544; AT&T 
First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613; AT&T Third 
Supplemental LOI Response at ATT027613-ATT027626, ATT027631-027634; and AT&T Fourth Supplemental 
LOI Response at ATT027642-ATT027659, ATT027715-ATT027720. 
24 See http://www.slforms.universalservice.org/drt/default.aspx; Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI 
Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544; Letter from Terri L. Hoskins, General Attorney, AT&T 
(continued….) 
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
5 
reimbursement for services provided in the 2014 funding year until July and August 2015, and USAC 
made its disbursements for the 2014 funding year around July 24, 2015 and September 1, 2015.25 
11. Florida deregulated all pricing for telephone services on July 1, 2011, after which AT&T
began to dramatically increase its pricing for previously regulated services.26  In every month between 
July 2012 and June 2015 in which they received the service, Dixie County and  were 
charged AT&T’s month-to-month “Guidebook,” 27 or tariff, rate for MFB service, which is the 
rate charged to customers for MFB service.28  AT&T steadily increased the MFB month-to-month 
Guidebook rates and charged the Districts the higher prices with each increase.29  Between July 2011 and 
January 2015, AT&T raised its Guidebook rates for MFB at least five times, with the price increasing 
from $52 per month to $97 per month.30 Further, between January 2014 and September 2014, both 
Districts paid among the highest rates of all non-residential customers for PRI service.31   As with MFB 
service, AT&T also raised its month-to-month Guidebook rates for PRI service every year.32 Between 
July 2011, and June 2015, AT&T raised its Guidebook rates for PRI service at least four separate times, 
with the price increasing over that period from $723 per month to $1,245 per month.33 AT&T moved 
Dixie County to Guidebook rates in November 2012 and switched Orange County to Guidebook rates in 
(Continued from previous page)  
Services Inc., to Gregory Simon, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement 
Bureau, and Pam Slipakoff, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, 
Attach. “Attachment 1-ATT024545.pdf” at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613 (Feb. 18, 2015) (on 
file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response); Letter from Terri L. Hoskins, General 
Attorney, AT&T Services Inc., to Gregory Simon, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC 
Enforcement Bureau, and Pam Slipakoff, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC 
Enforcement Bureau, Attach. “Attachment II-BST Erate LOI Question 7 2013 Data updated 031115.pdf” at 
ATT027613-ATT027626, ATT027631-027634 (March 4, 2015) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (AT&T Third 
Supplemental LOI Response); Letter from Terri L. Hoskins, General Attorney, AT&T Services Inc., to Gregory 
Simon, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, and Pam Slipakoff, 
Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, Attach. “Attachment I-BST 
Erate LOI Question 7 2012 Data final.pdf” at ATT027642-ATT027659, ATT027715-ATT027720 (March 18, 2015) 
(on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (AT&T Fourth Supplemental LOI Response).  
25 See USAC Report “Request 110615.xlsx” dated November 12, 2015 (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954). 
26 See http://cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/filings/flfiling.htm; AT&T July 9, 2015 Email, Response Nos. 12-13 (“[AT&T] 
was relieved of all pricing regulation in Florida as of July 1, 2011. 
.”). 
27 Florida deregulated pricing for telephone services effective July 1, 2011 and AT&T referred to its published rates 
after deregulation as “Guidebook” prices.  See AT&T Service Publications Guide at http://www.att.com/gen/public-
affairs?pid=13532 (describing Guidebook and tariffs); AT&T admits that it 
  AT&T July 9, 2015 Email, Response Nos. 11, 12, and 13, pgs. 4-6 and 
Attach. F, fn. 2. 
28 See Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544.  
29 See http://cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/filings/flfiling.htm; see also AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, 
ATT024542-024544; AT&T July 9, 2015 Email at Attach. E and F.  
30 See http://cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/filings/flfiling.htm; AT&T July 9, 2015 Email, Attach. F. 
31 See AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544; AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response 
at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613; AT&T Third Supplemental LOI Response at ATT027613-
ATT027626, ATT027631-027634; and AT&T Fourth Supplemental LOI Response at ATT027642-ATT027659, 
ATT027715-ATT027720. 
32 See http://cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/filings/flfiling.htm. 
33 See http://cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/filings/flfiling.htm; AT&T July 9, 2015 Email, Attach. E.  This price is based 
on just one item of PRI Service 3. 
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
6 
January 2014.34  After those dates, respectively, both Districts were also charged higher month-to-month 
rates with each Guidebook increase.35  
12. The Guidebook prices that Orange County and Dixie County paid for PRI and MFB
service between July 2012 and June 2015, are reflected in the following charts: 
MFB Service 
Dixie County 
Charges36 
July 2012 - Jan. 2013 $60 
Feb. 2013 – Dec. 2013 $68 
Jan. 2014 – June 2014 $81.75 
July 2014 - Jan. 2015 $90 
Feb. 2015 - June 2015 $97 
Orange County 
Charges 
July 2012 - Jan. 2013 $
Feb. 2013 – Nov. 2013 $
Dec. 2013 – June 2014 $
July 2014 - Sept. 2014 $90 
34 Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544; AT&T July 9, 
2015 Email at Attach. E and F. 
35 Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544. 
36 Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544. 
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
7 
PRI Service 
Service 1 Service 2 Service 3 
Dixie County 
Charges37 
Nov. 2012 - May 2013 $180 $510 $95 
June 2013 - Mar. 2014 $198 $561 $105 
Apr. 2014 - Sept. 2014 $238 $673 $126 
Orange County 
Charges 
Jan. 2014 - Mar. 2014 $198 $561 $105 
Apr. 2014 - Sept. 2014 $238 $673 $126 
13. AT&T has offered no reason for the repeated price increases, other than
38
39
.40  AT&T has not 
demonstrated and does not argue that the escalating prices it charged to the Districts were necessary to 
offset “demonstrably and significantly higher” costs necessary to provide service to the schools.41  Indeed, 
AT&T has not offered any justification for its pricing at all despite requests from the Enforcement Bureau 
(Bureau).42  We are left to conclude that AT&T sought to maximize profits at the expense of the Districts 
and at the expense of the publicly-funded E-rate program.    
14. The Districts Requested One Year of Service. The Districts sought yearly rather than
month-to-month service and it is not clear whether the Districts understood that they were paying the 
month-to-month Guidebook rates for either MFB or PRI.  When schools are seeking services under the E-
37 Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544. 
38 See AT&T Sixth Supplemental LOI Response, p. 1-13. 
39 AT&T July 9, 2015 Email, Response No. 10(a)-(d). 
40 AT&T July 9, 2015 Email, Response Nos. 11, 12 and 13; LCP Clarification Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14082, para. 4. 
41 See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9033-34, para. 488-89 (“[W]e will only permit 
providers to offer schools and libraries prices above the prices charged to other similarly situated customers when 
those providers can show that they face demonstrably and significantly higher costs to serve the school or library 
seeking service… If the services sought by a school or library include significantly lower traffic volumes or their 
provision is significantly different from that of another customer with respect to any other factor that the state public 
service commission has recognized as being a significant cost factor, then the provider will be able to adjust its price 
above the level charged to the other customer to recover the additional cost incurred so that it is able to recover a 
compensatory pre-discount price.”). 
42 In response to questions in the LOI asking for an explanation of its costs to provide these services, AT&T stated 
only that
 and did not provide any cost data.  See AT&T July 9, 2015 Email Response Nos. 12 and 13. 
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
8 
rate program, they typically issue an FCC Form 470 listing the types of service they want, inviting 
providers to submit bids for service in response.  After a school and provider reach an agreement on the 
terms of service, the school asks for funding by submitting a FCC Form 471 to USAC describing the 
service and its price.  The school may submit a FCC Form 472 to request reimbursement from the Fund, 
which USAC will typically pay if the provider certifies that all the E-rate rules have been followed.  Both 
Districts here utilized this procedure. 
15. In all years relevant to this investigation, the Districts each put out or relied on a FCC
Form 470 request for service indicating that they wanted service for the entire E-rate year, i.e., they did 
not request service for only a select number of months.43  For Orange County, nothing in the record 
indicates that AT&T responded to any of the bid requests for either PRI or MFB service.44  For Dixie 
County, AT&T produced , 
demonstrating that AT&T understood Dixie County was not requesting month-to-month service.45  
However, AT&T ultimately did not charge rates for a 12-month term as the Districts requested, or even 
other lower rates that the Districts were eligible to receive under a Florida state E-rate contract, but 
instead charged the month-to-month Guidebook rates.46  Dixie County specifically indicated on its forms 
to USAC in 2013 and 2014 that it was not requesting funding for month-to-month service, and that its 
service was pursuant to a Florida state contract.47  Orange County made similar representations in 2012 
and 2013.48   
43 See http://www.slforms.universalservice.org/drt/default.aspx. 
44
.  See Letter from Terri L. Hoskins, General Attorney, AT&T Services Inc., to 
Jennifer Epperson, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, and Pam 
Slipakoff, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, Attach. “Attachment 
I-ATT Question 6 Response 032715.pdf” at No. 6, p. 11-12 (March 27, 2015) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) 
(AT&T Sixth Supplemental LOI Response).  
45 See AT&T LOI Response at ATT000017. 
.  For 2014, AT&T says that Dixie County did not
See AT&T Sixth Supplemental LOI No. 6, p. 2-7. For 2012, AT&T produced emails showing
 See 
AT&T LOI Response at ATT0016929 and ATT0016931. It is not clear from the emails that 
.  For 2013, AT&T
 AT&T LOI Response at 
ATT000005-000017. 
46 For both 2012 and 2013, AT&T stated, “
.”  AT&T Sixth Supplemental LOI No. 6, p. 3-7.  We note that AT&T’s  does not 
appear to be LCP Requirement compliant, at least with respect to PRI, because AT&T’s own  Rates for 
PRI offer lower prices for the same -month term. In March 2013, AT&T  per month for 
PRI (including  items of Service 3) on a -month term. See AT&T LOI Response at ATT000017 and supra, fn. 
22, for details on the three components that make up PRI service. This  was higher than AT&T’s 2013 
 Rates in effect at that same time of $  for PRI, also on a -month term.  See AT&T LOI Response at 
ATT001531, ATT001606 (quoting a total of $  for PRI, including  items of Service 3).    
47 See http://www.slforms.universalservice.org/drt/default.aspx (FCC Form 471 Nos. 969833 (2014), 924534 
(2013)); see also infra paras. 17-19 and accompanying cites for details on the Florida contract.  In both 2013 and 
2014, Dixie County indicated that PRI service was not month-to-month and listed the Florida contract number.  In 
both years, Dixie County indicated that “local telephone service” was pursuant to a state contract, but did not 
identify the contract number.   
48  Orange County listed the Florida contract as the applicable contract vehicle in 2012 and 2013, and did not 
indicate that it was buying month-to-month service. See http://www.slforms.universalservice.org/drt/default.aspx  
(continued….) 
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
9 
16. AT&T Pricing Policy.  AT&T has a flowchart called a “ ” in its E-
rate Pricing Policy that guides its sales representatives in determining the appropriate price to charge E-
rate eligible entities.49  The  directs AT&T salespeople to first
50  If the 
 conditions are not met, the next step in the  requires a determination as to 
whether a “ ” rate is available.51  Even where such rate is available, the 
requires that a  Rate be offered to E-rate eligible entities if it would be lower than the 
rate.52   Rates are 
53  Only if neither a  nor a 
Rate are available for the particular service ordered by the school or library should the salesperson offer 
 rates.54  For the reasons described below, AT&T’s pricing policy failed to achieve LCP 
Requirement compliant pricing for the Districts’ PRI and MFB services. 
17. Florida SUNCOM E-rate Contract.  Florida’s Department of Managed Services (Florida
DMS) is an E-rate consortium lead that administers a state telecommunications network called 
SUNCOM.55  It entered into a contract with AT&T in February 2007, which remains in effect today, that 
enables eligible schools and libraries throughout Florida?along with other entities, including state 
agencies?to purchase E-rate supported services at reduced prices.56  A comparison of the SUNCOM E-
rate contract PRI rates to the Guidebook rates for PRI, which were both available on a month-to-month 
basis, shows that the Guidebook rates were 400% to 500% higher than those under the SUNCOM E-rate 
contract.57 MFB is not available under the SUNCOM E-rate contract.       
(Continued from previous page)  
(FCC Form 471 Nos. 901556 (2013) and 836856 (2012)).  In contrast in 2014, it stated the service was month-to-
month. See http://www.slforms.universalservice.org/drt/default.aspx (FCC Form 471 No. 992222 (2014)).   
49 The policy warns readers that non-compliance can result in dire consequences, such as “
                                                                                    ” AT&T LOI Response at ATT001508-ATT001510. 
50 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001508-ATT001510. 
51 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001510. 
52 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001510. 
53 See AT&T LOI Response No. 13 at pg. 10 fn. 14. Although the Company asserts that  Rates provide 
, as further discussed herein, it does not appear that the use of  Rates 
necessarily results in the Company charging LCP Requirement compliant pricing for eligible schools and libraries. 
54 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001510. 
55 See Fla. Stat. § 282.703; Fla. Admin. Code  r. 60FF-1.001 (“[T]he Department of Management Services (the 
Department) shall design, acquire, engineer, implement and operate a statewide network referred to as SUNCOM. 
Barring exceptions described within these rules, the Department shall obtain, secure, manage, coordinate State 
communications and provision for use of State communications services, equipment and communications 
software.”) 
56 All schools and libraries in Florida, along with other Florida state agencies, are eligible to order from the 
SUNCOM E-rate contract. See 
http://www.dms.myflorida.com/business_operations/telecommunications/suncom_e_rate_contracts; 
http://www.dms.myflorida.com/business_operations/telecommunications/suncom_customer_qualifications; AT&T 
LOI Response at ATT024625-ATT025604. 
57 http://www.dms.myflorida.com/business_operations/telecommunications/suncom_e_rate_contracts; Ranallo April 
19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024625-ATT025604; Letter from Terri L. Hoskins, General Attorney, 
(continued….) 
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
10 
18. Though the schools and libraries that order service under the SUNCOM E-rate contract
receive bills from the Florida DMS, and the Florida DMS in turn pays a monthly invoice to AT&T for all 
of the services delivered across the state, AT&T’s recordkeeping tracks the service and associated cost 
provided to each agency.  The monthly invoice from AT&T to the Florida DMS 
.58  
As a result, AT&T has detailed, easily audited records of the services delivered and prices charged to 
schools and libraries participating in the SUNCOM consortium.   
19. AT&T did not charge the Districts the lower Florida SUNCOM prices.  AT&T claims it
does not have 
.59  However, an email produced by AT&T discussing PRI states 
”60 AT&T argues that the Florida SUNCOM E-rate contract is not a “ ” under 
the  and has not identified any other contract that would be a “ ,” nor 
has it further explained its claim that it  in 
light of the email stating that Dixie County “ ”61  Regardless of whether the 
SUNCOM E-rate contract was a “ ” under the , AT&T apparently did not 
consider the Florida SUNCOM rates or other schools receiving those rates in determining the lowest 
corresponding price to charge the Districts.62    
20.  Rates.  PRI is one of the services for which AT&T has established a 
 Rate, 63 which is orders of magnitude less than Guidebook rates.  The Districts were not offered or 
(Continued from previous page)  
AT&T Services Inc., to Jennifer Epperson, Acting Deputy Division Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, 
FCC Enforcement Bureau, Gregory Simon, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC 
Enforcement Bureau, and Pam Slipakoff, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC 
Enforcement Bureau, Attach. 1, Response No. 11, p. 1 (May 15, 2015) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (AT&T 
Corrected Ninth Supplemental LOI Response) (
).  The Commission has encouraged schools and libraries to aggregate their demand and create consortiums 
with power to negotiate lower rates from service providers.  See 47 CFR § 54.501(c); First Universal Service Report 
and Order at 9027, para. 476; Fourth Order on Reconsideration at 5433, para. 200; E-Rate Modernization Order at 
8941–42, paras. 177–78.    
58 See Fla. Admin. Code r. 60FF-2.006; see also 47 C.F.R. § 54.501(c)(2); Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email. 
59 AT&T Sixth Supplemental LOI, Response No. 6, fn 32 (“
”). 
60 AT&T LOI Response at ATT000421. 
61 AT&T LOI Response at ATT000421.  AT&T further argued in this investigation that the SUNCOM contract is 
not a “Master Contract” as defined in the LOI and under the Commission’s rules.  The LOI and Section 54.500 of 
the rules define Master Contract as “a contract negotiated with a service provider by a third party, the terms and 
conditions of which are then made available to an eligible school, library, rural health care provider, or consortium 
that purchases directly from the service provider.”  AT&T argues that the SUNCOM contract does not meet this 
definition because schools and libraries purchase from the state of Florida and not directly from AT&T. See AT&T 
LOI Response No. 11, p. 8-9; see also Email from Terri Hoskins, General Regulatory, AT&T Services Inc., to 
Gregory Simon, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, Attach “ATT 
Response to 052115 Email.pdf” (May 26, 2015, 17:36 EDT) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954).   
62 After representatives for the Districts questioned AT&T about the lowest corresponding price and why they were 
charged Guidebook rates instead of the Florida rates, AT&T’s internal emails acknowledged that 
  AT&T LOI 
Response at ATT000421 (“
”). 
63 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001606.  Service 1 was $ , Service 2 was $  and Service 3 was $ .  The total 
price of $  is based on 23 items of Service 3. 
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
11 
charged this rate either, with no explanation from AT&T.  For MFB, AT&T 
 Rate. 
21. Other Non-residential Customers.  Other non-residential customers also paid much
lower prices for PRI and MFB, at varying contract lengths and terms.  For MFB, the lowest price AT&T 
charged other customers in Florida was $  in 2012, $  in 2013, and $  in 2014.64  There are 
hundreds of different prices between that lowest price and the Guidebook, and in 2014 alone, AT&T 
charged  different prices across thousands of non-residential customers in Florida for a single line of 
MFB service.65  Equally striking is how much lower many of those prices were compared to the prices 
charged to the Districts.  In September 2014, for example, AT&T charged  and Dixie 
County the  price of $90 for MFB service, which was magnitudes higher than other customers and 
more than  times the lowest price in 2014.66    
22. These varied prices were given to a wide range of customers.  The lowest rate for MFB
service, $ , was charged to a large financial institution.67 The  was charged 
$ .68  Hundreds of commercial businesses, including a Wall Street investment bank, several Fortune 
500 companies, and at least four other E-rate eligible entities were charged between $  and $  for MFB 
service in March 2014 alone.69 In addition to offering lower prices to enterprises and federal agencies, 
AT&T also charged much lower prices to other schools in Florida.  For all of 2014, at least eight schools or 
school districts, including the , paid $  for MFB service, % less than 
what AT&T charged the Districts.70  Schools and libraries in  County,  County, 
 County and  County were charged between $  and $  for their MFB service in calendar 
year 2014, less than  of what the Districts were paying.71  The record shows that AT&T offered a 
12 month contract for MFB service to at least one other non-residential customer in the state of Florida, at a 
rate of $  per month, which is much lower than what was charged to the Districts, who also sought 
MFB service for 12 months.72  
23. Large variations in pricing also exist for PRI service.  In all of 2014, across its Florida
market, AT&T had many different price points for each of the three PRI service components.73  For all 
non-residential customers in Florida in 2014, the Service 1 monthly rate ranged from $  to $ ; Service 
2 ranged from $  to $ ; and Service 3 ranged from $  to $ .74  For each of these components, the 
64 AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613; AT&T Third 
Supplemental LOI Response at ATT027613-ATT027626, ATT027631-027634; AT&T Fourth Supplemental LOI 
Response at ATT027642-ATT027659, ATT027715-ATT027720. 
65 AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613. 
66 Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544. 
67 See Email from Jacquelyne Flemming, Vice President, AT&T Services Inc., to Jiaming Shang, Attorney Advisor, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, and Jennifer Epperson, Deputy Chief, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, Attach. “FCC LOI Mar 2014.xlsx” (Nov. 2, 2015, 
17:47 EDT) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (AT&T MFB March 2014 Price Points).   
68 See AT&T MFB March 2014 Price Points. 
69 See AT&T MFB March 2014 Price Points; see also AT&T Third Supplemental LOI Response at ATT025734-
ATT027553. 
70 AT&T Third Supplemental LOI Response at ATT025734-ATT027553. 
71 AT&T Third Supplemental LOI Response at ATT025734-ATT027553. 
72 See AT&T MFB Analysis of March 2014 Customers. 
73 See AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613.  AT&T had 
 different prices for Service 1,  different prices for Service 2, and  different prices for Service 3.  
74 See AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613.  
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
12 
Districts were again charged some of the highest prices in the entire state, with September 2014 monthly 
Guidebook rates of $238 for Service 1, $673 for Service 2, and $126 for Service 3.75 For the Service 3 
component, the Districts again paid .76   
24. In comparison, other public school districts in Florida, such as  School
District and  School District, were charged just $  for Service 1.   County 
Schools was charged $  for Service 2 (less than  of the Districts) and $  for Service 3 ( % less 
than the Districts).77  AT&T also gave favorable PRI rates to parochial and private schools.  The 
 School paid $  for Service 1, $  for Service 2, and $  for Service 3, for a total price of $
for PRI service in 2014.78  Comparable totals for those same services to the Districts ranged  or 
times higher, from $864 to $1,037 in 2014, depending on the month.79       
25. The Districts’ PRI charges were also far higher than the rates in the SUNCOM contract
of $120 for Service 1, $340 for Service 2, and $7 for Service 3.80  Indeed, the Districts were paying prices 
that exceeded even the  Rates that AT&T’s own  emphasized should be 
offered to the schools as one potentially LCP Rule-compliant pricing option.  The lowest 
Rate, on a three-year term, for Service 1 was priced at $ , Service 2 at $  and Service 3 at $ .  The 
 Rate for a one-year term was $  for Service 1, $  for Service 2 and $  for Service 3.81 
26. These price ranges are reflected in the charts below:
MFB 
2014 Ranges of All 
Prices82 
$  - $90 (Guidebook) 
Highest 2014 Price 
Charged to the Districts 
$90 
PRI Service 1 PRI Service 2 PRI Service 3 
2014 Ranges of All Prices $  - $ $  - $ $  - $
SUNCOM E-rate 
Contract Rates83 
$120 $340 $7 
75 For comparison, in 2012, the lowest price for Service 1 was $ , Service 2 was $  and Service 3 was $ .  In 
2013, the lowest price for Service 1 was $  Service 2 was $  and Service 3 was $ .  See Third Supplemental 
LOI at ATT27554, ATT27631-ATT27634; Fourth Supplemental LOI at ATT027715-ATT027719. 
76 See AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613. 
77 AT&T Third Supplemental LOI Response at ATT025734-ATT027553. 
78 AT&T Third Supplemental LOI Response at ATT025734-ATT027553. 
79 AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544. 
80 Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T Second Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024939. 
81 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001605-ATT001607. 
82 These are the ranges of prices paid by AT&T non-residential Florida customers in calendar year 2014.  See AT&T 
First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613.  
83 See Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T Second Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024604-ATT025625. 
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
13 
One-Year 
Rates 
$ $ $
Highest 2014 Price 
Charged to the Districts 
(Guidebook) 
$238 $673 $126 
27. In July 2014, the Bureau received a referral on the issue from USAC.  On January 5,
2015, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to the Company directing it to provide the Bureau with 
information about the prices it charges to E-rate eligible and other non-residential customers in the state 
of Florida.84  Over the course of several months, AT&T responded to the request.      
III. DISCUSSION
28. We find that AT&T apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 254(h)(1)(B) of
the Act and Section 54.511(b) of the rules by failing to offer and charge the lowest corresponding price to 
Orange County and Dixie County since at least July 2012, until June 2015.85  After charging the Districts 
prices above the lowest corresponding price in violation of the LCP Requirement, AT&T apparently 
submitted forms to USAC in each of those three funding years that falsely certified compliance with our 
rules and caused USAC to disburse money from the Fund to subsidize the overpriced services.      
A. Legal Framework of the LCP Requirement 
29. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides:
All telecommunications carriers serving a geographic area shall, upon a bona fide 
request for any of its [E-rate eligible] services . . . provide such services to [schools 
and libraries] for educational purposes at rates less than the amounts charged for 
similar services to other parties.  The discount shall be an amount that the 
Commission, with respect to interstate services, and the States, with respect to 
intrastate services, determine is appropriate and necessary to ensure affordable 
access to and use of such services by such entities.86  
30. The rules enacted by the Commission to implement this statute prohibit providers from
charging schools, school districts, libraries, library consortia, or consortia including any of these entities, 
“a price above the lowest corresponding price for supported services … [unless] the lowest corresponding 
price is not compensatory.”87  “Lowest corresponding price” is defined as “the lowest price that a service 
provider charges to non-residential customers who are similarly situated to a particular school, library, or 
library consortium for similar services.”88  The Commission has referred to the lowest corresponding 
price in absolute terms and described it as an “upper limit” that can be charged in both competitive and 
84 See Letter of Inquiry from Jeffrey J. Gee, Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement 
Bureau, to Jacquelyne Flemming, AVP-External Affairs/Regulatory, AT&T Services, Inc. (Jan. 5, 2015) (on file in 
EB-IHD-14-00017954) (LOI).  
85 Although AT&T apparently continued to charge Dixie County Guidebook rates for MFB after June 2015, money 
from the Fund has not yet been used to reimburse those charges.  See, infra, fn. 111.    
86 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B). 
87 47 CFR § 54.511(b); see Fed.-State Joint Bd. on Universal Serv., Order and Order on Reconsideration 12 FCC 
Rcd 87, 363 para. 540 (1996); see also AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 377-78 (1999) (Commission 
has rulemaking authority to implement provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, including the 1996 
Amendments). 
88 47 CFR § 54.500. 
Federal Communications Commission  FCC 16-98 
14 
non-competitive markets.89  The LCP Requirement does not force providers to sell their services at a loss; 
rather, if a provider is charging a lower rate for a similar service to another non-residential customer in 
the same geographic service area, that rate is presumed “remunerative” and should be extended to 
schools.90   
31. Providers are “required to offer schools and libraries services at their lowest
corresponding prices throughout their geographic service area.” 91  Geographic service area is defined as 
“the area in which a telecommunications carrier is seeking to serve customers with any of its services 
covered by [the E-rate program].”92  
32. Additionally, a service provider’s obligation is triggered by service to any E-rate eligible
school or library and is not limited to a response to an FCC Form 470 or request for proposal (RFP).93  As 
the E-rate Modernization Order made clear, bids for E-rate service must be LCP compliant and service 
providers must ultimately charge the lowest corresponding price for E-rate service.94     
33. The Commission has recognized that charging a rate lower than a rate charged to any
other similarly situated customer may result in a loss to the service provider.  Therefore, the LCP Rule 
and the Commission’s Universal Service First Report and Order allow the service provider to charge 
more than that lowest price if, and only if, it would be “not compensatory”95 to do so because the 
provider’s costs to serve that E-rate applicant are “demonstrably and significantly higher” than the lower 
price that must otherwise be charged.96  This allowance for a demonstrable and justified upward 
adjustment gives providers the flexibility to charge higher prices where the service provider has 
affirmatively shown that actual cost-impacting terms and conditions necessitate a higher price to remain 
compensatory.97  
34. The LCP Requirement seeks to protect a specific class of non-residential customers (i.e.,
schools and libraries) by mandating preferential pricing for E-rate participants for services to be 
subsidized with public money from the Fund.98  Unlike other frameworks that seek non-discriminatory 
89 See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9031-32, paras. 484-485 (“[T]he lowest 
corresponding price [is] an upper limit on the price that carriers can charge schools and libraries in non-competitive 
markets, as well as competitive markets, so that eligible schools and libraries can take advantage of any cost-based 
rates that other customers may have negotiated with carriers during a period when the market was subject to actual, 
or even potential, competition.”). 
90 See id. (“We conclude that requiring providers to charge their lowest corresponding price would impose no 
unreasonable burden, even on non-dominant carriers, because all carriers would be able to receive a remunerative 
price for their services.”). 
91 Id. at 9033, para. 487. 
92 Id. 
93 See 47 CFR §§ 54.500, 54.511(b); E-rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8943, para. 183 (“we remind 
service providers that they not only must charge eligible schools, libraries, and consortia the LCP when providing E-
rate services, but also must offer eligible entities the LCP when submitting competitive bids to provide E-rate 
supported services”). 
94 E-rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8944, para. 185. 
95 47 CFR 54.511(b). 
96 See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9033-34, para. 488-89. 
97 Id.; Fourth Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd at 5401, para 141. 
98 Universal Service First Report and Order at 9027-28, para. 477 (“[P]ermitting large private sector firms to join 
with eligible schools and libraries to seek prices below tariffed rates could compromise both the federal and state 
policies of non-discriminatory pricing.  Thus, although we find congressional support for permitting eligible schools 
(continued….) 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
15 
pricing, the LCP Requirement does not seek to equalize pricing among customers; it seeks better pricing 
for schools and libraries.  Our analysis and proposed forfeiture is informed by that statutory intent.    
B. AT&T Apparently Violated the LCP Requirement 
35. We find that AT&T apparently violated the LCP Requirement with respect to prices it
charged Orange County and Dixie County for PRI and MFB services in the three E-rate funding years 
from July 2012 to June 2015.  AT&T had actual knowledge that the Districts were receiving E-rate 
support for PRI and MFB.  The Districts have received E-rate supported services from AT&T since 1998 
and AT&T filed or received E-rate-related filings every year in connection with those services.99  AT&T 
nevertheless continued for years to charge the Districts prices for PRI and MFB that were far higher than 
other customers, including other customers on one-year contracts, as the Districts were seeking, and other 
schools and libraries paying SUNCOM contract rates for PRI.   
36. Indeed, the Commission’s investigation revealed that for MFB, for every month in the
three funding years running from July 2012 to June 2015 in which one or both schools received the 
service, AT&T was charging  and Dixie County the  rates in the state of 
Florida.  For PRI, at different times since November 2012, one or both schools were also charged among 
the highest rates in Florida.  AT&T executed or submitted FCC Forms 472 and 473 in each of the three 
funding years that repeatedly and inaccurately certified its compliance with, inter alia, the LCP 
Requirement.100  Specifically, AT&T inaccurately certified each year that “this Service Provider is in 
compliance with the rules and orders governing the schools and libraries universal service support 
program.”101 Although AT&T continues to assert that its pricing of these services are somehow compliant 
with the LCP Requirement, the Company has failed to substantiate its plainly paradoxical position that 
some of the highest prices in the state of Florida for these services were the lowest corresponding prices.  
37. We confined our investigation to services provided and prices charged in Florida.   We
note that the Company seeks to serve customers in several states and its  Rates  
.102  
 
103  Different prices are offered for states grouped into  
(Continued from previous page)  
and libraries to secure prices below tariffed rates, we find no basis for extending that exception to enable all private 
sector firms to secure such prices.”). 
99 See AT&T LOI Response Nos. 4(a) and 5(a) and at ATT001136-ATT001294, ATT017174-ATT017184. 
100 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001272-ATT001273 (2012 Form 473), ATT001292-ATT001293 (2013 Form 473), 
ATT001312-ATT001313 (2014 Form 473), ATT017174-ATT017184 (2012-2013 Orange County Form 472’s) and 
ATT017189-ATT017199 (2012-2013 Dixie County Form 472’s); see also Feb. 9, 2016 USAC Report on AT&T 
Certifications (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954). On each year’s Form 472, AT&T certifies that “this Service 
Provider is in compliance with the rules and orders governing the schools and libraries universal service support 
program.”  The same certification is made on the 2014 Form 473. Although the certifications on the 2012 and 2013 
Form 473 do not specifically identify the LCP Rule, AT&T understands that the certifications require LCP 
Requirement-compliant pricing 
 
 
See AT&T LOI Response at ATT001509.      
101 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001312-ATT001313 (2014 Form 473), ATT017174-ATT017184 (2012-2013 
Orange County Form 472) and ATT017189-ATT017199 (2012-2013 Dixie County Form 472); see also Feb. 9, 
2016 USAC Report on AT&T Certifications (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954). 
102 See AT&T LOI Response at ATT001604-1606. 
103 See AT&T LOI Response at ATT001604-1606.  
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
16 
 regions.104  Nevertheless, as it appears that AT&T offered many lower prices for PRI and MFB 
services in Florida, we analyzed AT&T’s prices in reference only to other prices in Florida in order to 
streamline our review and simplify the analysis.105  The appropriate geographic scope of review in other 
situations may be different. 
1. AT&T Failed to Charge One-Year Contract Prices
38. AT&T apparently violated the LCP Requirement by failing to charge the Districts the
lowest corresponding price for a one-year contract for MFB and PRI.  In every relevant year here, the 
Districts’ FCC Form 470s requested service for the entire E-rate funding year, and did not ask for service 
for a few months.106  A one-year contract term is the length of service that the Districts were seeking.    
AT&T therefore should have examined all other similarly situated non-residential customers requesting 
one-year contracts and charged the Districts the lowest corresponding price for a one-year term. It 
apparently failed to do so, as many other AT&T customers received PRI and MFB service for a 12-month 
term at much lower rates.   
39. As clarified by the Commission in the 2014 E-rate Modernization Order, all bids for E-
rate service must be LCP Requirement compliant, and all actual charges for E-rate service must also be 
compliant.107  Here, there is no record of AT&T responding to the Districts’ request for 12-month service, 
and yet later it provided the same service requested in the bid, but charged much higher month-to-month 
Guidebook rates instead of 12-month rates.  If AT&T had charged the Districts rates that reflected a 12-
month term contract, instead of month-to-month Guidebook rates, the Districts would have paid far less 
for PRI and MFB service.  For PRI, AT&T’s  Rates with a 12-month term was $  per 
month.108  In 2014, Orange County paid as much as $3,809 per month (almost  more than the 12-
month  Rate) for the same PRI service.109  For MFB, the record indicates that a business 
customer on a 12-month contract with  paid $  in 2014, while the Districts 
paid as much as $90.110  Both Districts have had MFB service since at least July 2012.  Orange County 
received MFB service continuously for over two years until September 2014 while Dixie County had 
continuous MFB service for at least three years, and apparently continues to receive MFB service.111  
104 See AT&T LOI Response at ATT001604-1606. 
105 Nor has AT&T argued for any smaller geographic scope.  
.  See AT&T LOI Response at 
ATT001510.   
106 See, supra, discussion at para. 14 and 15. 
107 E-rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8944, para. 185. 
108 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001606.  Service 1 was $ , Service 2 was $  and Service 3 was $ .  The total 
price of $  is based on 23 items of Service 3. 
109 Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544.  Dixie County 
only received 10 items of Service 3, but still paid as much as $2,171 a month. 
110 See Email from Jacquelyne Flemming, Vice President, AT&T Services Inc., to Jiaming Shang, Attorney Advisor, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, and Jennifer Epperson, Deputy Chief, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, Attach. “MFB Analysis – FCC Selected Customer 
List.xlsx” (Nov. 9, 2015, 16:56 EDT) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (AT&T MFB Analysis of March 2014 
Customers). 
111 Ranallo April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T LOI Response at ATT024522-024541, ATT024542-024544; see Email 
from Jacquelyne Flemming, Vice President, AT&T Services Inc., to Jiaming Shang, Attorney Advisor, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, et. al., (Nov. 9, 2015, 16:56 EDT) (on file in EB-
IHD-14-00017954)  
).    
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
17 
40. Unless otherwise required by law or some other commitment, AT&T is not generally
obligated to respond to each service request from a school.  But if it does respond, the bid must be LCP 
Requirement compliant.  Further, AT&T cannot fail to respond to a bid requesting a service for 12 
months or more, and yet continue to provide the same service requested in the bid at high month-to-month 
rates.   
2. AT&T Charged the Districts Rates Higher than the SUNCOM E-rate
Contract
41. AT&T’s apparent violation of the LCP Requirement is also evidenced by its failure to
charge Orange County and Dixie County the lower SUNCOM E-rate contract rates that they were eligible 
to receive.  AT&T charged the Districts higher prices for PRI services than the rates for identical AT&T 
services that the Districts were eligible to purchase through the SUNCOM E-rate contract.112 The 
SUNCOM E-rate contract allowed any school or library anywhere in Florida to purchase PRI service 
from AT&T at a set rate of $621 per month with no term, volume, or revenue commitments or early 
termination fees.113   However, services that Orange County and Dixie County ordered directly from 
AT&T were priced at significantly higher, Guidebook rates, with Orange County paying as much as 
$3,809 for the service in September 2014.114   
42. AT&T negotiated the SUNCOM E-rate contract with the Florida DMS, which acted as a
consortium lead so that schools and libraries anywhere in Florida could take advantage of negotiated 
rates, but the Florida DMS is not the AT&T customer to which comparisons should be made for LCP 
compliance.  Rather, AT&T should have determined whether the individual Florida state agencies 
(including dozens of other school districts) purchasing under the SUNCOM E-rate contract were similarly 
situated to the Districts here.  AT&T provided those agencies the same services that AT&T also provided 
to the Districts at substantially higher rates.   Regardless of whether these other agencies were billed 
directly by AT&T or whether AT&T billed them through a consolidated monthly invoice sent to DMS 
specifying the exact amount, type, and price of services that AT&T provided to each entity, AT&T 
nevertheless charged them the SUNCOM E-rate contract rates.115   
43. We also can be sure that AT&T was aware of the SUNCOM E-rate contract rates and,
further, that the Districts were eligible to purchase AT&T’s PRI service at the SUNCOM E-rate contract 
rates.  The record demonstrates that AT&T had knowledge of the SUNCOM E-rate contract rates.  The 
112 See AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613; Ranallo 
April 19, 2016 Email; AT&T Second Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024604-ATT025625 
113 The total of $621 a month assumes 23 items of Service 3.  AT&T does not dispute that the SUNCOM E-rate 
contract prices are available month-to-month.  See AT&T Corrected Ninth Supplemental LOI Response No. 11(b), 
p. 2 (“
”); see also Email from Terri Hoskins, General Regulatory, AT&T 
Services Inc., to Gregory Simon, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement 
Bureau, et. al. (May 6, 2015, 11:48 EDT) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (  
 
).   
114 See AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT024548-ATT024553, ATT024609-ATT024613. 
115 See AT&T First Supplemental LOI Response at ATT0024625-0025604; Fla. Admin. Code r. 60FF-2.006; 47 
C.F.R. § 54.501(c)(2). AT&T has also suggested that Florida regulations bar AT&T from charging the SUNCOM 
prices because they specify a procedure the applicants must follow to purchase from the SUNCOM agreement. See 
Letter from Terri L. Hoskins, General Attorney, AT&T Services Inc., to Hillary Burchuk, Deputy [sic] Bureau 
Chief, FCC Enforcement Bureau, et al. (July 20, 2016) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954).  However, the regulations 
AT&T identified only specify a procurement process that parties should follow if they wish to purchase from the 
SUNCOM agreement. They do not prohibit AT&T from charging other customers the same rate in the agreement, 
and AT&T documents reflect that customers outside of the SUNCOM agreement have been charged the same rate as 
the SUNCOM agreement for PRI Service 1 and Service 2.  See AT&T LOI Response at ATT025734-027553.   
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
18 
record contains AT&T emails discussing the Districts that , 
demonstrating that AT&T had actual knowledge that the Districts were eligible to receive service under 
the SUNCOM E-rate contract, which would have resulted in lower prices for the same services.116  
Moreover, AT&T sends a consolidated monthly invoice to the Florida DMS setting forth,  
, the SUNCOM E-rate . Consequently, AT&T also had actual knowledge in 
every month between July 2012 and June 2015 that other schools and libraries were paying less than the 
Districts’ Guidebook rates for PRI.  Despite this knowledge, AT&T continued to charge the Districts 
Guidebook rates.    
44. By charging the Districts almost 400% more for PRI services than the price in the
SUNCOM E-rate contract, AT&T apparently neglected its obligation to offer and charge the Districts the 
lower prices that they were eligible to receive for the same AT&T services provided in accordance with 
the SUNCOM E-rate contract.  The LCP Requirement ensures that schools and libraries that are eligible 
to receive service under a state or local governmental contract, like the SUNCOM E-rate contract here, 
are not to be charged more than the price offered in that contract, regardless of whether the school or 
library ultimately orders its service pursuant to the contract—making such contract rate a ceiling on the 
rate that the provider may offer and charge. We note that this does not necessarily mean that the 
governmental contract rate is the lowest corresponding price under the LCP Requirement.  If, for 
example, other non-residential customers are paying even less than the governmental contract for similar 
services, schools and libraries should receive those even lower rates where required under the LCP 
Requirement. In sum, we conclude that the failure to charge the rates available under the SUNCOM E-
rate contract is further evidence of AT&T’s apparent violation of the LCP Requirement, as those rates 
were also much lower than the Guidebook Rates ultimately charged to the Districts for PRI service.    
3. AT&T’s Pricing Policies Apparently Do Not Lead to LCP Requirement
Compliant Prices
45. Under the LCP Requirement, AT&T is obligated to charge E-rate eligible schools the
lowest price charged to similarly situated, non-residential customers.  Therefore, if any one of the thousands 
of customers who received lower prices was similarly situated to one of the schools, that school should have 
received that customer’s lower price. If the school did not receive one of those lower prices, AT&T should 
be able to demonstrate that none of the entities receiving lower prices were similarly situated to either Dixie 
County or Orange County, or that the lower prices were not compensatory.   
46. Throughout the course of this investigation, AT&T could not make this showing.  When
asked, AT&T could not confirm that it had examined other non-residential customers receiving a lower 
price to determine whether any were similarly situated to the Districts; rather it was simply “ ” of 
any similarly situated customers.117    
47. Having certified compliance with the LCP Requirement, AT&T may not rest on a
professed lack of knowledge.  Indeed, AT&T’s lack of knowledge is the result of its pricing policies and 
processes that, far from facilitating LCP Requirement compliance, would seem to make it next to 
impossible to comply with the LCP Requirement.  For each service, there can be multiple customers with 
different contracts at each price point.  For MFB, in March 2014 alone, there were  different customers 
with individual contracts at the $  price point.118  For all of the  different price points for MFB in 
116 AT&T LOI Response at ATT000421. 
117 Despite thousands of other customers receiving better rates than the Districts, AT&T stated that it “  
” where schools and libraries were charged more than other similarly situated customers. See AT&T 
LOI Response No. 15, p. 13.   
118 See Email from Jacquelyne Flemming, Vice President, AT&T Services Inc., to Jiaming Shang, Attorney Advisor, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, et. al., Attach. “March 2014 Customers at selected 
rates.xlsx” (Sept. 29, 2015, 18:36 EDT) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954).    
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
19 
2014, there are thousands of individual customer contracts.  Per its , AT&T 
salespeople do not directly consider those other contracts and prices when they decide what to offer and 
charge the schools.119   
48. The  implies that the choices are: (1) 
, (2) a price set in a  (which was not charged to the Districts and does not exist for 
MFB), (3) the  Rate (which was also not charged to the Districts ) 
or (4) the  rate.  Nowhere is there any mention of checking the lowest price offered for the 
service.  Nowhere is there any directive to match service offers and prices to the term requested in a FCC 
Form 470.  Nowhere is there any instruction to consider lower prices that may be available under a 
consortium agreement.  Nowhere is there any guarantee that the  price or the  
Rate, , are the lowest corresponding price. The only remaining alternative, the 
 rate, appears to almost always be the highest price offered, not the lowest.  For a product like 
MFB, which is not offered in any state contract and for which AT&T chose not to develop a  
, AT&T ended up charging hundreds of different prices in 2014.   
49. During the course of the investigation, AT&T could not identify the contract terms of
customers who received a lower MFB price, but AT&T’s counsel offered to examine the circumstances of 
certain customers with lower MFB prices.  Fourteen customers were ultimately selected and AT&T’s 
counsel provided post-hoc justifications as to why those customers received lower prices.  AT&T 
explained, for instance, that the $  rate paid by one financial institution in 2014 was the rate for  
, and that the actual contracted rate was $ , while the  rate of 
$  was given because it is a “ .”120  AT&T’s counsel explained that many 
of the customers paying between $  and $  for MFB, including the customer on a 12-month contract, 
also  from AT&T, such as .121  More generally, 
AT&T indicated that the  and  are two major factors that 
determine prices.  In its analysis of the fourteen customers’ MFB service, “ ” and “  
” were the primary factors it used to explain its pricing.122     
50. These limited and specific justifications with respect to selected customers do not
demonstrate AT&T’s compliance with the LCP Requirement.  AT&T, for example, has not explained 
why the  is a protected class of customer entitled to lower rates, while E-rate entities like 
the Districts are not, notwithstanding the fact that pricing charged to a protected class of customer can set 
the lowest corresponding price.  Nor has AT&T explained why it matters that some customers  
, particularly given that the Districts also .123   
51. In addition, in contrast to AT&T’s assertion, its own analysis indicates that even
favorable  and  do not necessarily result in lower prices.  
For example, in March 2014, the business customer on a 12-month contract with no  
paid $  for MFB service.124  A county public library on a -month contract with  
119 See , AT&T LOI Response at ATT001510. 
120 See Email from Jacquelyne Flemming, Vice President, AT&T Services Inc., to Jiaming Shang, Attorney Advisor, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, and Jennifer Epperson, Deputy Chief, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, Attach. “MFB Analysis – FCC Selected Customer 
List.xlsx” (Nov. 9, 2015, 16:56 EDT) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954) (AT&T MFB Analysis of March 2014 
Customers).   
121 See AT&T MFB Analysis of March 2014 Customers. 
122 See AT&T MFB Analysis of March 2014 Customers. 
123 AT&T LOI Response No. 2(a), p. 2 (  
). 
124 See AT&T MFB Analysis of March 2014 Customers. 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
20 
 paid $  for the same service, despite having both a  and  
.125   
52. More importantly, there is no evidence that AT&T conducted any sort of similar analysis
in developing, offering, and charging prices to the Districts or other E-rate eligible entities. Rather, the 
analysis was conducted after-the-fact by its lawyers in response to this investigation.  However, 
compliance with the LCP Requirement necessarily requires an ongoing, real-time process that evaluates 
the rates offered and charged for services provided to (or requested by) E-rate applicants with the rates to 
other similarly situated customers.  As noted above, it appears that AT&T had no such process. 
4. AT&T’s Arguments Do Not Justify Its Failure to Comply with the LCP
Requirement
53. AT&T contends that the prices it charged to the Districts were appropriate because these
districts were not similarly situated to any of the thousands of other customers receiving lower prices.  
AT&T defines “similarly situated” as  
 
 
.”126  As discussed above, 
however, AT&T is apparently incapable of demonstrating that each of the Districts were not similarly 
situated to each and every one of the thousands of other customers that received lower rates, or even the 
dozens of members eligible to purchase PRI from the SUNCOM contract.   
54. By employing such a wide-ranging and open definition of “similarly situated,” AT&T
allows itself to make each customer individualized and effectively “similarly situated” to no one else, 
should it chose to do so.  This is plainly contrary to the intent of the LCP Requirement and the 
Commission’s previous admonition that service providers may not avoid providing the lowest 
corresponding price “by arguing that none of their non-residential customers are identically situated to a 
school or library or that none of their service contracts cover services identical to those sought by a school 
or library.”127   
55. AT&T also argues that the other customers that received lower prices were willing to
negotiate.128  As discussed above, AT&T concedes that  
129  This entirely misses the point of the LCP Requirement.  Schools and libraries are not 
obligated to negotiate or ask for better rates; providers are required to submit bids for and charge the 
lowest corresponding price to eligible schools and libraries at the outset.130  Emails suggest that AT&T at 
a minimum was aware that  
 but ultimately charged the higher Guidebook rates.131   
56. AT&T argues that the Districts wanted month-to-month service, and the Guidebook
prices are the month-to-month prices.  However, as we previously discussed, in every relevant year here, 
the Districts’ FCC Form 470 requested service for the entire E-rate funding year, and did not ask for 
125 See AT&T MFB Analysis of March 2014 Customers. 
126 See AT&T Sixth Supplemental LOI Response No. 6, p. 1. 
127 Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 903, para. 488. 
128 AT&T Sixth Supplemental LOI Response No. 6, p. 1-12. 
129 AT&T LOI Response at ATT00421. 
130 E-rate Modernization Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8943, para. 183. 
131 AT&T Sixth Supplemental LOI Response No. 6, p. 7 fn. 32. 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
21 
service for a few months.132  AT&T could have charged the Districts 12-month  Rates for 
PRI and 12-month contract prices for MFB given to at least one other business customer.  Instead, AT&T 
charged the Districts month-to-month Guidebook rates that were many times higher.    
57. In any event, AT&T’s prices may not be compliant with the LCP Requirement even if the
Districts actually requested month-to-month services. In the course of its investigation, the Bureau 
specifically asked AT&T to list the lowest month-to-month MFB or PRI prices charged to other 
customers since January 2011, to which AT&T responded by merely listing its Guidebook rates.133  The 
record, however, reflects at least  instances in which customers received month-to-month rates for 
MFB or PRI below the Guidebook rates.  Schools eligible to purchase services under the SUNCOM 
Contract (which included the Districts) could purchase PRI services on a month-to-month basis at rates 
lower than the Guidebook rates.  AT&T’s pricing records reveal that AT&T provided at least  lines of 
month-to-month PRI service at the SUNCOM contract rates in the 2013-2014 calendar years.134   
58. In addition, the  received a lower price than the Districts for
MFB in 2014 and paid $  compared to the Districts’ $81.75, despite also ordering service on a month-
to-month basis.135  AT&T admitted that the  specifically ordered service off the Guidebook in 
2013 but explains that Guidebook price increases in 2014 were not passed on because federal government 
prices are “ .”136 But as with its justifications for the preferential rates given to the  
, AT&T has not explained why the  was allowed to  lower pricing while the 
Districts were not.  In short, there is no evidence that AT&T determined whether any of the thousands of 
other non-residential customers in its service territory was paying a lower rate than the Guidebook rate for 
the same services on a month-to-month basis.   
59. AT&T posited that other customers paid the same Guidebook rates AT&T charged the
Districts, arguing for example that “in FY 2013, [AT&T] charged [Dixie County] the month-to-month 
guidebook rates of $68.00/line and $81.75/line for [MFB] service; the same rates that [AT&T] charged 
other customers like , which complies with the LCP rule.”137  This argument clearly 
mistakes the purpose of the LCP Requirement.  The issue is not whether some other, similarly-situated 
132 See, supra, discussion at para. 14 and 15. 
133 AT&T July 9, 2015 Email, Response No. 2 and 3, Attach. A and B.  AT&T’s response listing its Guidebook rates 
was particularly evasive because the Bureau specifically asked AT&T to identify the lowest month-to-month rates 
for service, including services pursuant to the SUNCOM contract and similar agreements. 
134 AT&T Third Supplemental LOI Response at ATT025734-ATT027553 (listing  lines of PRI Service 1,  lines 
of PRI Service 2, and  lines of PRI Service 3 provided at the Florida contract rates).  
135 See Email from Terri L. Hoskins, General Attorney, AT&T Federal Regulatory, to Jiaming Shang, Attorney 
Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, Attach. “ .pdf” (Dec. 4, 
2015, 08:39 EDT) (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954). 
136 See Email from Terri L. Hoskins, General Attorney, AT&T Federal Regulatory, to Jiaming Shang, Attorney 
Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 4, 2015, 08:39 EDT) (on file in EB-
IHD-14-00017954) (“  
 
.”).  Regardless of the reason that  rates remained frozen, the fact 
remains that the  ordered the same month-to-month Guidebook services as the Districts. AT&T’s failure 
to charge the E-rate supported Districts the same preferential rate it gave a federal government entity would appear 
to plainly violate the LCP Requirement.    
137 See AT&T Sixth Supplemental LOI Response, Response No. 6, p. 11-12 (identifying, among others, a large 
pharmaceutical company, creative entertainment company, and real estate brokerage also charged Guidebook rates 
for PRI and MFB). 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
22 
customers paid the same high rates as the Districts.  The issue is whether any similarly-situated customer 
paid less.   
IV. FINDINGS
60. In conclusion, the record shows an apparent violation of the LCP Requirement and
suggests that the Districts were offered and charged some of the highest rates, rather than the lowest rates. 
We find that AT&T apparently violated the LCP Requirement when it failed to charge the Districts the 
lowest corresponding price for MFB and PRI.  The Districts requested one year of service on their FCC 
Form 470, and the record shows that AT&T charged other customers lower rates for MFB or PRI service 
on one-year terms.  Further, AT&T charged a much higher rate than what the Districts were eligible to 
receive under the SUNCOM contract.  In fact, AT&T charged the Districts month-to-month prices that 
were some of the highest prices charged to any customer in the state.  AT&T has offered no explanation 
for not giving the Districts one-year pricing, particularly in the case of PRI where there was a one-year 
 Rate, and has not argued that one-year term prices would not be compensatory if charged to 
the Districts.  Nor does there appear to be any legitimate explanation for why AT&T failed to charge the 
Districts the SUNCOM E-rate contract rates.   
61. While we recognize the Districts’ own duty to be cost-effective, we need not reach the
issue of their conduct in this matter given the fault by AT&T.138  AT&T was obligated to offer and charge 
the lowest corresponding price and nothing higher, particularly in a case where AT&T had been providing 
the same, legacy telephone service to the Districts for many years and receiving payments from the Fund 
each year.     
62. AT&T’s pricing process as a whole does not show LCP Requirement compliance; rather
many lower prices have been charged to other non-residential customers in Florida for the same services 
provided to the Districts.  Looking only at two services and examining just a handful of customers, we 
found customers who apparently were paying much lower prices despite either having substantially the 
same terms of service as the Districts or having substantially the same terms the Districts were seeking. 
AT&T at least should have considered these customers when determining the lowest corresponding price.  
AT&T did not do so because its pricing policies apparently do not require such consideration.  If AT&T 
persists in applying a methodology that fails to compare E-rate eligible entities with other non-residential 
customers, the Commission may take additional action in the future. 
V. COMPLIANCE AND PROPOSED FORFEITURE 
63. For the reasons set forth above, we find that AT&T apparently violated the LCP
Requirement.  AT&T must comply with the LCP Requirement and make changes to its processes that 
track the prices and terms of other non-residential customers and implement policies ensuring that E-rate 
eligible entities are charged prices that are compliant with the LCP Requirement.  Further, and separately, 
AT&T shall file a report with the Commission within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice of 
Apparent Liability in which it (1) identifies every non-residential customer who is similarly situated to 
one of the Districts and who, between July 2012 and June 2015, received MFB or PRI service on a one 
year contract, (2) describes how it intends to update the  to ensure that sales 
personnel offer only LCP Requirement compliant prices to E-rate eligible entities, including how it 
intends to ensure that schools and libraries receive no more than a state contract rate if they are eligible to 
order from such a contract, and (3) outlines a plan to identify, by name and contact information, all non-
residential customers who are “similarly situated” to any given E-rate eligible entity.   
64. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a forfeiture against any
entity that “willfully or repeatedly fail[s] to comply with any of the provisions of [the Act] or of any rule, 
138 See 47 CFR § 54.511(a).  
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
23 
regulation, or order issued by the Commission.”139 In this instance, Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act 
authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture against AT&T of up to $160,000 per violation or for 
each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,575,000 for a single act or failure to 
act.  In exercising our forfeiture authority, we must consider 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.”140  In addition, the Commission 
has established forfeiture guidelines, which establish base penalties for certain violations and identify 
criteria that we consider when determining the appropriate penalty in any given case.141  Under these 
guidelines, 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.142   
65. The Commission has not previously established a base penalty for violations of Section
254(h)(1)(B) of the Act, or Section 54.511(b) of the Commission’s rules.  Administering the E-rate 
Program is an intensive undertaking, which requires that service providers submit complete and accurate 
information.  In seeking to modernize the E-rate Program in recent years, the Commission has sought to 
protect the program against waste, fraud, and abuse.  The rules of the E-rate program ensure that limited 
funds available for schools and libraries are distributed in the most efficient and equitable manner 
possible.  Imposing a significant forfeiture on rule violators is important to deter service providers that 
fail to devote sufficient resources to ferreting out company practices that result in improper collections 
from the Fund.  In addition, a significant forfeiture should achieve broader industry compliance with the 
LCP Requirement, which is critical to the effective functioning of the Fund.   
66. In calculating a proposed forfeiture, we are guided in part by the forfeiture methodology
previously set forth for other violations involving the Universal Service Fund, particularly where a carrier 
apparently submitted inaccurate forms to USAC and, as a result, collected support to which it was not 
entitled.143  We propose a forfeiture based on: (1) a base forfeiture of $20,000 for each instance in which 
the provider files an inaccurate certification on a FCC Form 472 or FCC Form 473 in the 2014-2015 year 
that it complied with the rules of the E-rate Program, including the LCP Requirement; and (2) an upward 
adjustment of the base forfeiture equal to three times the overcharge amount received by the provider 
above the lowest corresponding price during the July 2014 to June 2015 timeframe.     
67. With respect to the first component of the forfeiture methodology, we conclude that
AT&T certified or submitted at least nine (9) inaccurate forms in the three funding years from July 2012 
139 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 CFR § 1.80(2)(2).  These amounts reflect inflation adjustments to the 
forfeitures specified in Section 503(b)(2)(B) ($160,000 per violation or per day of a continuing violation and 
$1,575,000 per any single act or failure to act).   
140 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E). 
141 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8), Note to para. (b)(8). 
142 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8), Note to para. (b)(8). 
143 See, e.g., Budget Prepay, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 2508, 2513 (2014). In 
Budget Prepay, the Commission imposed a three-part forfeiture for Lifeline violations: (1) a base forfeiture of 
$20,000 for each instance in which an ETC files an FCC Form 497 that includes ineligible subscribers; (2) a base 
forfeiture of $5,000 for each ineligible subscriber for whom the ETC requests and/or receives support; and (3) an 
upward adjustment of the base forfeiture equal to three times the reimbursements requested and/or received by the 
ETC for ineligible subscribers.  While we draw on the overall structure of that framework, the calculation related to 
the number of ineligible subscribers is not applicable in the LCP context and we do not utilize it here.  See also VCI 
Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940 para. 18 (2007) (“Accordingly, we 
establish $20,000 per form as the base forfeiture amount for the filing of inaccurate requests for reimbursement 
under the low-income program, in violation of sections 54.407(c) and 54.413(b) of the Commission’s rules.”).  
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
24 
through June 2015: six (6) FCC Form 472144 Billed Entity Applicant Reimbursement Forms (one from 
each school, each year) and three (3) Form 473145 Service Provider Annual Certification forms.  By 
certifying or submitting these forms, AT&T caused USAC to disburse funds to reimburse the Districts for 
MFB or PRI at prices that were not compliant with the LCP Requirement.  These violations are 
continuing because the forms have not been corrected and AT&T has retained the excessive 
reimbursements.  Because we limit our forfeiture to just three forms submitted in the 2014-2015 funding 
year, this results in a proposed base forfeiture amount of $60,000, at $20,000 per form.   
68. With respect to the second component, we calculate the overcharges by AT&T to the
Districts for PRI and MFB services provided in the July 2014 to June 2015 E-rate funding year, and then 
treble that amount.  The overcharge is the difference between the prices charged and what should have 
been charged absent the violation.  Using the lowest price identified in this investigation for a 12-month 
contract, the overcharge during the three funding years between 2012 and 2015 was $63,760. 146  
Exercising our discretion to limit the forfeiture determination only to overcharges in the most recent 
funding year, July 2014 to June 2015, the overcharge is $15,475, and the trebled upward adjustment is 
$46,425. 
69. In addition to assessing a forfeiture, we also believe it is appropriate to order that AT&T
repay the amounts overpaid from the E-rate Fund as a result of AT&T’s apparent violations, and plan to 
order a recovery of those disbursements at the forfeiture stage if we conclude that AT&T has violated the 
LCP Requirement.  The Commission is compelled to seek recovery of funds disbursed in violation of a 
144 AT&T LOI Response at ATT017174-ATT017184 and ATT017189-ATT017199; see also Feb. 9, 2016 USAC 
Report on AT&T Certifications (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954). 
145 AT&T LOI Response at ATT001272-ATT001273, ATT001292- ATT001293, and ATT001312- ATT001313. 
146 Between July 2012 and June 2015, we assume the applicable price for MFB was no higher than $ , which 
was the price paid by another non-residential customer for a 12-month contract with no .  The 
Guidebook rates for MFB increased in January of each year after deregulation as follows: $60 in 2012, $68 in 2013, 
$81.75 in 2014, and $97 in 2015.  See http://cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/filings/flfiling.htm.  Between July 2012 and 
June 2015, we assume the applicable price for PRI based on the 12-month  Rates was $  for Service 
1, $  for Service 2, and $  for each item of Service 3. The Guidebook rates for PRI increased after deregulation 
as follows:  May 2012 - Service 1: $180, Service 2: $510 and Service 3: $95; May 2013 - Service 1: $198, Service 2: 
$561 and Service 3: $105; April 2014 - Service 1: $238, Service 2: $673 and Service 3: $126; January 2015 - 
Service 1: $286, Service 2: $808 and Service 3: $151. See http://cpr.bellsouth.com/pdf/fl/filings/flfiling.htm.  Dixie 
County was charged for MFB at Guidebook rates for the months of July 2012 through June 2015.  The net 
overcharge to Dixie County was $8,650.  Between July 2012 and June 2015, Dixie County should have paid no 
more than $5,216 for its five lines of MFB service.  Instead, it paid $13,867.  The E-rate program reimbursed Dixie 
County for 85% of charges in funding year 2012, 88% of the charges in funding year 2013, and 90% of the charges 
in funding year 2014, resulting in a loss to the Fund of $7,627.  Dixie County was charged for PRI at Guidebook 
rates for the months of November 2012 to September 2014.  The net overcharge to Dixie County for all three PRI 
components was $29,497.   Between November 2012 and September 2014, Dixie County should have paid no more 
than $14,099 for its PRI service.  Instead, it paid $42,596.  The E-rate program reimbursed Dixie County for 85% of 
charges in funding year 2012, 88% of the charges in funding year 2013, and 90% of the charges in funding year 
2014, resulting in a loss to the Fund of $24,919.  Orange County was charged for MFB at  rates for the 
months of July 2012 to September 2014.  The net overcharge to Orange County was $15,059.  Between July 2012 
and September 2014, Orange County should have paid no more than $10,925 for its MFB service.  Instead, it paid 
$25,984 for its MFB service.   The E-rate program reimbursed Orange County for 75% of charges in funding year 
2012 and 77% of the charges in funding years 2013 and 2014, resulting in a loss to the Fund of $11,455.  Orange 
County was charged for PRI at Guidebook rates for the months of January 2014 to September 2014.  The net 
overcharge to Orange County was $25,659.  Between January 2014 and September 2014, Orange County should 
have paid no more than $7,628 for its PRI service.  Instead, it paid $33,287.  The E-rate program reimbursed Orange 
County 77% of the charges in funding year 2014, resulting in a loss to the Fund of $19,757. 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
25 
statute or Commission rule, including the LCP Requirement.147  In the case of a violation, the 
Commission “should recover the full amount disbursed.”148    
70. The Commission’s Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order states that “recovery
actions should be directed to the party or parties that committed the rule or statutory violation in 
question.”149  Accordingly, AT&T is apparently responsible for returning the E-rate funds it received 
while in violation of the LCP Requirement.     
71. Recovery of such funds is not barred by the passage of time.150  The Commission stated
in the Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order that funding “disbursed in violation of a statute or a 
rule that implements the statute or a substantive program goal must be recovered in full.”151  Federal 
Agencies are directed by law to collect money owed to them, and the Commission followed this mandate 
in matters such as Lakehills, which instituted recovery in 2011 for funds improperly disbursed as early as 
2002.152 Based on this temporally broad mandate, we propose a recovery of $63,760 for overcharges 
during the three year period from July 2012 to June 2015.  Although our proposed forfeiture is limited to 
AT&T’s violations in the 2014-2015 funding year, AT&T must return all excess disbursements it 
received for the inflated prices it charged for MFB and PRI service it provided to the Districts beginning 
in July 2012.    
VI. CONCLUSION
72. We have determined that AT&T apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section
254(h)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 54.511(b) of the Commission’s rules. AT&T therefore is apparently 
liable for a forfeiture of $106,425. No portion of this proposed forfeiture is based on AT&T’s violations 
between July 2012 and June 2014. Furthermore, we have determined that AT&T must return $63,760 in 
improperly disbursed monies to the Fund. 
147 Sch. & Libraries Universal Serv. Support Mechanism, Fifth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd. 15808, 15815, para. 
20 (2004) (Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order) (“Amounts disbursed in violation of the statute or a rule 
that implements the statute or a substantive program goal must be recovered in full.”).  Because this is the 
Commission’s first enforcement of the LCP Requirement, we have limited our recovery to the amount overpaid by 
the Fund, but do so without prejudice to future action in other cases for additional recovery of amounts disbursed in 
violation of a statute or rule. 
148 Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15815-16, para. 21. 
149 Fed.-State Joint Bd. on Universal Serv., Order on Reconsideration and Fourth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 
15252, 15255, para. 10 (2004). 
150 Review of Decisions of the Universal Serv. Adm'r by Joseph M. Hill Tr. in Bankr. for Lakehills Consulting, LP. 
Sch. & Libraries Universal Serv. Support Mechanism, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 16586, 16600-01, para. 28 (2011) 
(Lakehills) (citing United States v. Wurts, 303 U.S. 414, 415-16 (1938) (“The Government by appropriate action can 
recover funds which its agents have wrongfully, erroneously, or illegally paid. . . . Ordinarily, recovery of 
Government funds, paid by mistake to one having no just right to keep the funds, is not barred by the passage of 
time.”)); see also Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 (1946) (“Traditionally, and for good reasons, statutes 
of limitation are not controlling measures of equitable relief.”); Request for Waiver or Review of a Decision of the 
Universal Service Administrator by Premio Computer, Inc., Order, 29 FCC Rcd 8185 para. 6 n.16 (WCB 2014) 
(Premio Computer) (“The Government’s right to recover funds, from a person who received them by mistake and 
without right, is not barred unless Congress has clearly manifested its intention to raise a statutory barrier to 
recovery.  Congress has imposed no such statutory barrier to recovery but, to the contrary, in the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act, has generally directed agencies to try to collect a claim of the U.S. government for money or 
property arising out of activities of, or referred to, the agency.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 
151 Fifth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15815, para. 20. 
152 Lakehills, 26 FCC Rcd at 16596, 16601, paras. 20, 28; see also Premio Computer, 29 FCC Rcd 8185, para. 6 
n.16. 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
26 
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES
73. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act153 and
Sections 1.80 of the rules,154 BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Southeast is hereby 
NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of One Hundred 
Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty-Five Dollars ($106,425) for willful and repeated violations of 
Section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Act155 and Section 54.511(b) of the rules.156  
74. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that regardless of whether BellSouth
Telecommunications, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Southeast seeks a reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture, or 
modification or cancellation of any other requirement in this NAL, it shall file, within thirty (30) calendar 
days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, a report in which it (1) 
identifies every non-residential customer who is similarly situated to one of the Districts and who, 
between July 2012 and June 2015, received MFB or PRI service on a one-year contract, (2) describes how 
it intends to update the  to ensure that sales personnel offer only LCP Requirement 
compliant prices to E-rate eligible entities, and (3) outlines a plan to identify, by name and contact 
information, all non-residential customers who are “similarly situated” to any given E-rate eligible entity.  
Such report must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and 
affidavits pursuant to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission’s rules.  The report must be mailed 
to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, 
DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau – Investigations and Hearings Division, and must include the 
NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption.  The report must also be e-mailed to Jia-Ming Shang at 
jiaming.shang@fcc.gov and Jeffrey Gee at jeffrey.gee@fcc.gov.  
75. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the rules,157 within thirty
(30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, BellSouth 
Telecommunications, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Southeast 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 paragraph 78 below. 
76. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number referenced above.  BellSouth 
Telecommunications, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Southeast shall send electronic notification of payment to Jia-
Ming Shang at jiaming.shang@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.158  When completing the 
FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters 
“FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code).  Below are additional instructions that should be 
followed based on the form of payment selected:  
• 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.
153 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). 
154 47 CFR § 1.80. 
155 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B). 
156 47 CFR § 54.511(b). 
157 47 CFR § 1.80. 
158 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf. 
Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98 
27 
• 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. 
77. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent
to:  Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.159  Questions regarding payment procedures should 
be directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov. 
78. 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.160  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 – Investigations and Hearings Division, and must include the NAL/Account Number 
referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be e-mailed to Jia-Ming Shang at 
jiaming.shang@fcc.gov.   
79. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a
claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:  (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-
year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or 
(3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current 
financial status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by 
reference to the financial documentation. 
80. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Jacquelyne 
Flemming, AVP-External Affairs/Regulatory, AT&T Services and BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, 
d/b/a AT&T, 1120 20th St. NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC  20036. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Marlene H. Dortch 
Secretary 
159 See 47 CFR § 1.1914. 
160 47 CFR §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-98 
28 
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI 
Re: BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Southeast, File No. EB-IHD-14-00017954. 
FCC rules state that an E-5ate proYider ³shall not . . . charge schools . . . a price above the lowest 
corresponding price Ior supported serYices,´1 Peaning a proYider Pa\ not charge schools Pore than ³the 
lowest price [the] service provider charges to non-residential customers who are similarly situated to a 
particular school . .  Ior siPilar serYices´2  I agree with my colleagues that AT&T may have violated that 
rule in Florida  %ut the EnIorcePent %ureau¶s handling oI the inYestigation has Iatall\ coPproPised our 
ability to impose a lawful forfeiture upon the carrier. 
+ere¶s the probleP  :e haYe issued this Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) too late.  The 
Communications Act imposes a one-year statute of limitations.3  Like most other statutes of limitations,4 
it runs from when a violation is complete²in this case, when $7	7 ³charge>d@´ 'i[ie &ount\ and 
2range &ount\ ³a price aboYe the lowest corresponding price´  $ccording to our records, $7	7 last 
charged Dixie County for the relevant services on July 1, 2014, and Orange County for the relevant 
services on June 1, 2015.5  And the last relevant form AT&T filed in conjunction with these charges was 
October 27, 2014.6  So even in the best-case scenario, the statute of limitations ran out 56 days ago, on 
June 1, 2016.7 
7hat¶s a shaPe because the EnIorcePent %ureau becaPe aware oI $7	7¶s conduct two Iull 
years ago,8 just as the statute of limitations was beginning to run and long before it expired.  That means 
we could have imposed a lawful forfeiture had we acted with alacrity (or even a modicum of urgency). 
In contrast, the NAL claiPs that these ³Yiolations are continuing because the forms have not been 
corrected and $7	7 has retained the e[cessiYe reiPbursePents´9  That cannot be right.  As I have 
written beIore, this theor\ ³stretches the concept oI a continuing Yiolation past the breaNing point  For 
example, under this theory, the statute of limitations for theft would begin to run not when an item is 
stolen or even when it is discovered that an item has been stolen, but rather when that item is returned to 
its rightful owner.  Needless to say, that is not the law and neither do I believe that a court would find our 
1 47 C.F.R. § 54.511(b). 
2 47 C.F.R. § 54.500(f). 
3 Communications Act § 503(b)(6)(B). 
4 See Gabelli v. S.E.C., 133 S. Ct. 1216, 1220 (2013) ³Thus the µstandard rule¶ is that a claim accrues µwhen the 
plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.¶´ 
5 See 86$& 5eport ³5eTuest [ls[´ dated 1oYePber ,  (on file in EB-IHD-14-00017954). 
6 See AT&T LOI Response at ATT017174±ATT017184, ATT017189±ATT017199, ATT001272±ATT001273, 
ATT001292±ATT001293, & ATT001312±ATT001313. 
7 What is more, even if this action had been brought by June 1, 2016, the proposed forfeiture would necessarily be 
minimal since the total amount AT&T apparently charged Orange County that month was only $37.50²and indeed, 
AT&T has not apparently charged Orange County more than $37.50 per month for the relevant services since 
October 1, 2014.  See 86$& 5eport ³5eTuest [ls[´ dated 1oYePber ,  (on file in EB-IHD-14-
00017954). 
8 See NAL at para  ³In July 2014, the Bureau received a referral on the issue from USAC´). 
9 See Notice at para. 67. 
 Federal Communications Commission             FCC 16-98  
 
29 
reasoning in toda\¶s iteP to be persuasiYe´10 
One last point.  Under the NAL¶s theor\, the F&& could pursue potential rule Yiolations dating 
back to 2012²or even back to 1996²but instead ³e[ercis>es@ its discretion to limit the forfeiture 
deterPination onl\ to oYercharges in the Post recent Iunding \ear´11  1ow, , don¶t agree with this theor\  
But if I did believe that these claims were not time-barred, I would not endorse this exercise of discretion.  
If the Commission can impose lawful forfeitures on a company in this situation, then we should; the NAL 
does not explain, and I cannot think of, any non-legal reason to excuse a service provider that overcharges 
schools. 
For all these reasons, I dissent. 
 
                                                     
10 Intelsat License LLC f/k/a Intelsat North America, LLC, File No. EB-11-IH-1376; NAL/Acct. No. 201432080001; 
FRN 0009308008, Notice of Apparent Liability, 28 FCC Rcd 17183, 17194 (2013) (Statement of Commissioner 
Ajit Pai, Dissenting). 
11 See Notice at para. 68.