******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

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



Federal Communications Commission DA 17-248
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554 
In the Matter of
OneLink Communications, Inc.
TeleDias Communications, Inc.
TeleUno, Inc.
Cytel, Inc.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-TCD-13-00007004
FRN: 0007539471
File No. EB-TCD-16-00020892
FRN:  0007513815
File No. EB-TCD-16-00020893
FRN:  0005835558
File No. EB-TCD-16-00020894
FRN:  0020071205
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Adopted:  March 14, 2017 Released:  March 14, 2017
By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau; and Chief, Competition 
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. By this Order, we initiate a proceeding to determine whether to revoke the domestic 
Section 214 authorizations held by OneLink Communications, Inc. (OneLink); TeleDias 
Communications, Inc. (TeleDias); TeleUno, Inc. (TeleUno); and Cytel, Inc. (Cytel) (collectively, the 
Companies).
1
  
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Companies are common carriers and are subject to Title II of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (Act).  In particular, OneLink, TeleDias, TeleUno, and Cytel are resellers of 
domestic and international
2
long distance telecommunications services.
3
  OneLink operates the 
Companies as a single enterprise in Alpharetta, Georgia, and provides back office and administrative 
support for the Companies.
4
  
                                                     
1
The Companies, like all telecommunications carriers, have blanket Section 214 domestic authority.  In 1999, the 
Commission granted all telecommunications carriers blanket authority under Section 214 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (Act), to provide domestic interstate services and to construct or operate any domestic 
transmission line.  Implementation of Section 402(b)(2)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 et al., Report and 
Order in CC Docket No. 97-11, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in AAD File No. 98-43, 14 FCC Rcd 
11364, 11365–66, para. 2 (1999); 47 CFR § 63.01.
2
See ITC-214-20010918-00487 (OneLink); ITC-214-20020808-00394 (TeleDias); ITC-214-20000906-00521 
(TeleUno); ITC-214-20100817-00331 (Cytel).  
3
OneLink Communications, Inc., et al, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 31 FCC Rcd 1403, 1404, para. 4 
(2016).
4
Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-248
2
3. In August 2016, all four Companies notified the Commission that they were surrendering 
their international Section 214 authorizations, thereby extinguishing their authorizations to provide 
international telecommunications services.
5
  On August 16, 2016, the California Public Utilities
Commission (California PUC) attempted to contact OneLink’s counsel regarding a slamming 
investigation.
6
  OneLink’s counsel responded to the California PUC that OneLink no longer existed and 
thus could not respond to the investigation.
7
  
III. DISCUSSION
4. OneLink, which operated all of the Companies as a single enterprise, has represented to 
the California PUC that it no longer exists.  Although this representation would mean that the Companies 
have ceased to provide certain telecommunications services, the Enforcement Bureau and the Wireline 
Competition Bureau (collectively, the Bureaus) have found no evidence that the Companies have 
complied with the statutory and regulatory provisions that must be observed before a carrier may lawfully 
discontinue a telecommunications service.
8
  As discussed in the next paragraph, the absence of such 
evidence raises questions regarding the Companies’ compliance with other statutory and regulatory 
requirements, their ongoing qualifications to hold domestic Section 214 authorizations, and whether 
retention of these authorizations serves the public convenience and necessity.
5. The Bureaus have been unable to confirm that the Companies complied with various 
statutory and regulatory requirements.  For example, the Bureaus have found no evidence that the 
Companies:  (1) filed for discontinuance of domestic telecommunications services as required under 
Section 214 of the Act and Section 63.71 of the Commission’s rules;
9
(2) updated their registration 
information to remove California from the list of jurisdictions in which they provide telecommunications 
service;
10
or (3) filed their FCC Form 499-Qs due on August 1, 2016, November 1, 2016, or February 1,
2017.
11
6. Accordingly, we initiate a proceeding to determine whether to revoke the Companies’
domestic Section 214 authorizations.
12
  This proceeding affords the Companies notice and an opportunity 
to file a written response providing evidence of their compliance with the foregoing requirements (or an 
explanation as to why noncompliance was permissible under the Act and the Commission’s rules), 
thereby demonstrating that the public convenience and necessity are served by their retention of their 
domestic Section 214 authorizations.  If the Companies have not complied with the foregoing 
requirements, they have the opportunity to file a written response describing how they intend to achieve 
compliance and why the Commission should not revoke their domestic Section 214 authorizations.
7. The Companies must file a response with the Enforcement and Wireline Competition 
Bureaus within thirty (30) calendar days demonstrating why the Commission should not revoke their
                                                     
5
International Authorizations Granted, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 10876, 10880 (IB 2016).
6
Letter to OneLink Communications, Inc., from Jeanette Lo, Chief, Utility Enforcement Branch, Consumer 
Protection and Enforcement Division, California Public Utilities Commission (Sept. 13, 2016). 
7
Id.
8
See 47 U.S.C. § 214(a); 47 CFR § 63.71.
9
See 47 U.S.C. § 214(a); 47 CFR § 63.71.
10
See, e.g., Detailed Information for OneLink Communications, Inc., Federal Communications Commission Form 
499 Filer Database, http://apps.fcc.gov/cgb/form499/499detail.cfm?FilerNum=823296 (last visited Mar. 6, 2017) 
(indicating that the Company provides telecommunications services in California); see also 47 CFR § 64.1195(g);
id. § 64.1195(b)(5) (requiring the carrier to identify “[t]he states in which the carrier provides telecommunications”).
11
See 47 CFR § 54.711(a); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 5748, 5755, para. 19 (2001).
12
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(j), 403; 47 CFR § 1.1.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-248
3
domestic Section 214 authorizations.  Each company’s response must include evidence of current 
subscribers, revenue, and assets.  Failure to respond or submit a response providing a reasonable basis for 
why the Companies should retain their domestic Section 214 authorizations may result in revocation of 
the domestic Section 214 authorizations held by the Companies.
IV. CONCLUSION
8. For the reasons set forth above, we initiate this proceeding to determine whether to 
revoke the domestic Section 214 authorizations held by OneLink, TeleDias, TeleUno, and Cytel.  This 
proceeding affords the Companies notice and an opportunity to file a written response providing evidence
of their compliance with the foregoing requirements (or an explanation as to why noncompliance was 
permissible under the Act and the Commission’s rules), thereby demonstrating that retention of their
domestic Section 214 authorizations would serve the public convenience and necessity.  Each Company’s 
response must include evidence of current subscribers, revenue, and assets.  If the Companies have not 
complied with the foregoing requirements, they have the opportunity to file a written response describing 
how they intend to achieve compliance and why the Commission should not revoke their domestic 
Section 214 authorizations.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(j) and 403 of the Act and 
Sections 0.91, 0.111, 0.291, 0.311, 1.1, and 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules,
13
OneLink 
Communications, Inc., TeleDias Communications, Inc., TeleUno, Inc., and Cytel, Inc. SHALL FILE a 
written response pursuant to the requests in paragraph 8 within thirty (30) calendar days from the release 
date of this Order.
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, 
return receipt requested, to: (1) Michael Donahue and Jane L. Wagner, Marashlian & Donahue, PLLC, 
attorneys for OneLink Communications, Inc., TeleDias Communications, Inc., TeleUno, Inc., and Cytel, 
Inc., 1420 Spring Hill Road, Suite 401, McLean, VA 22102; (2) Enrique Martinez, CEO, OneLink 
Communications, Inc., 8400 N. University Dr., Ste. 204, Tamarac, FL, 33321; (3) OneLink 
Communications, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, 1015 15
th
Street, NW, Ste. 1000, Washington, DC, 
20005; (4) Carmen Asorey, CEO, TeleDias Communications, Inc., 1100 California Dr., Ste. 204, Reno, 
NV, 89509; (5) TeleDias Communications, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, 1015 15
th
Street, NW, Ste. 
1000, Washington, DC, 20005; (6) Christina Perry, CEO, Cytel Inc., 2700 W Atlantic Blvd., Ste. 280, 
Pompano Beach, FL, 33069; (7) Cytel, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, 1015 15
th
Street, NW, Ste. 1000, 
Washington, DC, 20005; (8) Avelino Iglesia, CEO, TeleUno, Inc., 2754 W Atlantic Blvd., Ste. 8, 
Pompano Beach, FL, 33069; (9) TeleUno, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, 1015 15
th
Street, NW, Ste. 
1000, Washington, DC, 20005.  
                                                     
13
47 U.S.C. §§ 154(j), 403; 47 CFR §§ 0.91, 0.111, 0.291, 0.311, 1.1, 1.102(b)(1).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-248
4
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE POSTED in the 
Commission’s Office of the Secretary.
14
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Richard A. Hindman
Chief
Telecommunications Consumers Division 
Enforcement Bureau
Daniel Kahn
Chief
Competition Policy Division
Wireline Competition Bureau
                                                     
14
See 47 CFR § 1.47(h).