Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

$1.44M Deception & Slamming NAL Against Preferred Long Distance, Inc.

Download Options

Released: December 20, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159


Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, DC 20554



In the Matter of
)
File No.: EB-TCD-12-00003409

)

Preferred Long Distance, Inc.
)
NAL/Acct. No.: 201332170008

)

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
)
FRN: 0003757473




NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE


Adopted: December 19, 2012

Released: December 20, 2012

By the Commission:

I.

INTRODUCTION


1.
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find that Preferred Long
Distance, Inc. (Preferred or Company)1 apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 201(b) and
258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),2 and Section
64.1120 of the Commission’s rules.3 As discussed in more detail below, we find that Preferred has
apparently changed the preferred telecommunications service providers of a number of consumers
without their authorization, a practice commonly known as “slamming.”4 The conduct here is especially
egregious because in 11 of the instances of slamming on which this NAL is based, Preferred appears to
have effectuated the carrier change by making misrepresentations to consumers that Preferred’s
telemarketer was calling from or on behalf of the consumer’s own carrier. Based on our review of the
facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we propose a monetary forfeiture of one
million four hundred forty thousand dollars ($1,440,000).

II.

BACKGROUND


2.
Preferred is a non-facilities-based interexchange carrier based in Encino, California. The
Commission has received numerous slamming complaints against Preferred. Pursuant to standard
Commission processes,5 the agency’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) served these
complaints on Preferred and directed it to respond to the allegations and provide evidence of an
authorized change in the subscriber’s selection of a telecommunications service provider. Recently, CGB
issued orders granting consumer complaints against Preferred, finding that the Company failed to provide

1 According to the Commission’s records and publicly available information, Preferred’s offices are located at
16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 350, Encino CA 91436.
2 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 258.
3 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.
4 The Appendix to this NAL identifies the consumers on whose complaints it is based, along with the dates each
instance of slamming occurred and apparent violations involved.
5 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(c), (d).


Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159





evidence of an authorized carrier change.6 The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) initiated an investigation
after reviewing complaints involving Preferred.7

III.

DISCUSSION

A.

Apparent Violations of Section 201(b)

3.
Section 201(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll charges, practices,
classifications, and regulations for and in connection with [interstate or foreign] communication service
[by wire or radio], shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation
that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful.”8 The Commission has found that unfair and
deceptive marketing practices by interstate common carriers constitute unjust and unreasonable practices
under Section 201(b) of the Act.9 In particular, the Commission has found that a carrier violates Section
201(b) by effectuating a change to a consumer’s preferred carrier through deception about its identity, or
the nature of its service.10
4.
We find that Preferred apparently violated Section 201(b) by engaging in deceptive
practices in connection with changes to the preferred carriers of 11 consumers. Preferred’s telemarketer
apparently misrepresented its identity and the nature of the transactions in which it sought to engage 11
consumers. The telemarketer claimed to be, or be affiliated with, the complainant’s current long distance
carrier. We find that these deceptive, fraudulent practices are unjust and unreasonable practices that
apparently violate Section 201(b) of the Act.
5.
In 11 of the violations on which this NAL is based, the complainants allege that
Preferred’s telemarketer claimed to be, or be affiliated with, the consumer’s current long distance carrier.
For example, Complainant Slotnick observed that “[t]his company stated and reiterated multiple times

6 See, e.g., Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscribers’
Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, DA 12-1900 (rel. Nov. 28, 2012) (granting slamming complaints filed by G.
Busch, B. Littmann, and J. Dyer); Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 13381 (CGB 2012) (granting slamming complaint
filed by M. Tice); Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscribers’
Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 13333 (CGB 2012) (granting two slamming complaints, including
the complaint filed by W. Legler); Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Change of
Subscribers’ Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 13328 (CGB 2012) (granting slamming complaints
filed by B. Schneider, J. Ariza, and P. Almon); Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaints Regarding Unauthorized
Change of Subscribers’ Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 9026 (CGB 2012) (granting six slamming
complaints, including the complaint filed by A. Russo); Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaints Regarding
Unauthorized Change of Subscribers’ Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 9021 (CGB 2012) (granting
21 slamming complaints including the complaints filed by A. Burton, D. Smith, J. Slotnick, F. Littleton, and D.
Williams).
7 See Appendix.
8 47 U.S.C. § 201(b).
9 See, e.g., Business Discount Plan, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 14461 (2000) (BDP Forfeiture Order)
(finding that the company violated Section 201(b) by using unjust and unreasonable telemarketing practices such as
misrepresenting the nature of its service offerings); Telecommunications Research & Action Center & Consumer
Action
, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 2157 (Com.Car.Bur. 1989) (TRAC) (recognizing that Section
201(b) provides a cause of action against carriers for failing to convey sufficient information about their rates,
practices, and range of services).
10 See Silv Communication Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 5178 (2010) (Silv NAL).
2



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159





that they were partnered with AT&T.”11 Complainant Russo stated that she “was [c]alled by [Preferred]
Long Distance who claimed they were now the authorized billing agent for [AT&T].”12 Complainant
Tice explained that the Preferred telemarketer “stated that they were a sub-division of AT&T.”13 The
telemarketer told her that “during the verification process the [verifier] would say that [Preferred] is an
independent company not affiliated with AT&T . . . . [and] this was true only in the fact that they were
separate yet still part of AT&T—a sub-department—and that this was just a technicality required by the
FCC.”14 Other complainants allege similar instances of misrepresentation.15
6.
The Commission has ruled that carriers are responsible for the conduct of third parties
acting on the carrier’s behalf, including third party marketers.16 The Commission has held that licensees
and other Commission regulatees are responsible for the acts and omissions of their employees and
independent contractors, and consistently refused to excuse licensees from forfeiture penalties where
actions of employees or independent contractors have resulted in violations.17 Preferred has not provided
any evidence that its third party telemarketer was acting outside the scope of its engagement or
employment. Thus, pursuant to Section 217 of the Act, we find the acts of Preferred’s third party
telemarketer to be the acts of Preferred.
7.
Preferred has not produced credible evidence that any of these complainants in fact
authorized a change in his or her provider. Thus, based on the above, we conclude that Preferred
apparently violated Section 201(b) of the Act by changing the preferred carriers of 11 complainants
identified in the Appendix through making material misrepresentations about Preferred’s identity and/or
the purpose of its calls, and therefore without cognizable authorization from such complainants.

11 Complaint from J. Slotnick.
12 Complaint from A. Russo.
13 Complaint from M. Tice.
14 Id.
15 See Complaint from P. Almon (“This company represented themselves as our carrier, AT&T.”); Complaint from
A. Burton (“A representative called saying she was with AT&T and since we only had one line they had a separate
company called Preferred that would be taking over small business accounts with less than 45 lines.”); Complaint
from G. Busch (“Carrier deceived me by misstating their association with AT&T.”); Complaint from J. Dyer
(“Preferred called and said they were a division of AT&T.”); Complaint from W. Legler (Telemarketer said they
were “associated with AT&T.”); Complaint from B. Schneider (“Preferred Long Distance called on behalf of
AT&T.”); Complaint from D. Smith (“I received a phone call on February 28, 2012 from a representative of
Preferred Long Distance, Inc. He identified himself as representing AT&T.”); Complaint from D. Williams (“I was
told by Preferred that they were with AT&T.”). Section 503(b)(6) empowers the Commission to propose a
forfeiture penalty for violations that occurred within one year preceding the issuance of an NAL. Thus, this NAL is
based on the complaints of consumers, identified in the Appendix, who allege to have been slammed within the past
year. The Commission has reviewed similar complaints during the course of this investigation. See, e.g., Complaint
from M. Carter (“Preferred Long Distance called to offer discounts to [my] phone bill. Caller identified himself as
Jason with AT&T . . . . I asked many times ‘You’re with AT&T’ and Jason replied ‘Yes.’”); Complaint from B.
Jellinek (Telemarketer “stated they were chosen by AT&T to be [her] local & long distance provider.”).
16 See Long Distance Direct, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3297, 3300, para. 9 (2000); 47
U.S.C. § 217.
17 See Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-21864, para.
7 (2002) (citing American Paging, Inc. of Virginia, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10417, 10420,
para. 11 (Wireless Bur., Enf. and Cons. Inf. Div., 1997), quoting Triad Broadcasting Company, Inc., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 96 FCC 2d 1235, 1244, para. 21 (1984)).
3



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159





B.

Apparent Violations of Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the
Commission’s Rules

8.
In addition to the Section 201(b) violations, we find that Preferred apparently violated
Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules. Section 258 of the Act makes it
unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to “submit or execute a change in a subscriber’s selection of
a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such
verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.”18 Pursuant to Section 258, the Commission
has adopted implementing rules. Section 64.1120(c) provides that a carrier must verify a change in one of
three ways: (1) obtain the subscriber’s written or electronically signed authorization in a format that
meets the requirements of Section 64.1130;19 (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free
number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically;20 or (3) utilize an
independent third party to verify21 the subscriber's order in accordance with certain requirements.22
9.
Section 64.1120(c)(3) sets forth detailed procedures that carriers who choose to use third
party verification must follow. Among other specific requirements, the carrier’s verifier must confirm
“the telephone numbers to be switched,” and must ensure that “any description of interLATA service . . .
convey[s] that it encompasses both international and state-to-state calls, as well as some intrastate calls
where applicable.”23 The requirements were adopted to ensure that consumers understand precisely the
service changes they are approving and to increase consumer confidence, decrease the administrative
costs for carriers, and alleviate the enforcement burden on the Commission.24
10.
We have reviewed the TPV recordings for 14 changes that Preferred provided, and find
that they do not satisfy the requirements of the rule. For example, Complainant Russo’s TPV failed to

18 47 U.S.C. § 258(a). The Commission has found that a submitting carrier violates Section 258 of the Act when it
effectuates a change in a consumer’s preferred carrier through engaging in deceptive practices, such as
misrepresentations about its identity, designed to prevent the consumer from understanding that the submitting
carrier is, in fact, seeking to change the consumer’s preferred carrier. See BDP Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd at
14467, para. 12 (the Commission found that “BDP knew, or should have known, that consumers acting reasonably
under these circumstances would be misled or confused by BDP’s telemarketing calls and that therefore, consumers
were not authorizing a PIC change.”).
19 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(1).
20 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(2).
21 Third party verification or TPV, is one of the methods a carrier may use to verify and record a consumer’s
authorization to change his or her preferred long distance carrier. In general, the TPV procedures involve
verification of a consumer’s oral authorization to change preferred carriers by an independent third party and must
strictly comply with Section 64.1120(c)(3) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3).
22 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3).
23 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii). A local access and transport area, or LATA, can cross over state boundaries.
Some states have more than one LATA. LATAs can exist in multiple area codes and an area code can be in more
than one LATA. An intrastate call can be an interLATA toll call.
24 See Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of
1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers
, CC Docket
No. 94-129, Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 493, 493, para. 1 (2008) (Fourth Report and Order). See also
Consumer Telcom, Inc., Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
,
Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 5340, 5341-42, para. 5 (CGB 2012) (reiterating that any description of the
carrier change transaction must not be misleading).
4



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159





obtain separate authorizations for each service sold;25 Complainant Williams’ TPV included only the call-
back portion of the recording, but failed to include any form of verification of the switch;26 and 13 TPVs
failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched.27 Our rules require that the TPV specifically
elicit the “telephone numbers to be switched,” rather than merely verifying numbers associated with a
business or residence, or for what purpose the numbers are used.28 Thus, these verifications failed to
comply with Section 64.1120 of our rules.29 We find that especially where consumers contend that they
did not intend to change carriers at all, and that Preferred in fact misled them, enforcement of these rules
is crucial to protect consumers.30
11.
We also note that one of the complainants also contends that the person with whom
Preferred’s telemarketer spoke specifically stated that he did not have authority to change the company’s
long distance carrier. Complainant Littleton stated that “[i]n January of 2012 this company called. They
were told that the person answering the phone was not authorized to make changes as the owner was out
of town.”31 Preferred’s response to this allegation was nonsensical, asserting that if the consumer “lied by
saying she has the authority then she committed fraud on our company.”32

25 Complaint from A. Russo; Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 9026 (CGB 2012). See 47 C.F.R. §
64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
26 Complaint from D. Williams.
27 Complaint from P. Almon; Complaint from J. Ariza; Complaint from A. Burton; Complaint from G. Busch;
Complaint from J. Dyer; Complaint from W. Legler; Complaint from F. Littleton; Complaint from B. Littmann;
Complaint from B. Schneider; Complaint from J. Slotnick; Complaint from D. Smith; Complaint from M. Tice;
Complaint from D. Williams. See Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of
Subscribers’ Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, DA 12-1900 (rel. Nov. 28, 2012); Preferred Long Distance, Inc.,
Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd
13381 (CGB 2012); Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s
Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 13333 (CGB 2012); Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaints
Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 13328 (CGB
2012); Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s
Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 9021 (CGB 2012).
28 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
29 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3).
30 See Silv NAL, 25 FCC Rcd at 5184, para. 12.
31 Complaint from F. Littleton. Bureau staff is aware of additional situations where the complainants argue that
Preferred was specifically told by the person who purportedly authorized the carrier change switch that such person,
in fact, was not authorized to make the switch. See, e.g., Complaint from L. Sakuma (“the employee . . . stated that
he . . . was just a worker…” and has no authority to make any decisions). The Bureau staff reviewed the TPV for
the Sakuma complaint. The TPV contains the statement from the employee that he was a cashier and does not have
an affirmative response—or any response at all—to the specific question asked by the telemarketer to the employee
as to whether the employee had the authority to agree to the carrier change.

32 See Letter from Keith Nussbaum, Regulatory Contact, Preferred Long Distance, Inc., to the FCC Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau (June 5, 2012) regarding the Complaint from F. Littleton.
5



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159





12.
We conclude that Preferred apparently violated Section 258(a) of the Act and Section
64.1120(c)(3) of the Commission’s rules by failing to follow all of the Commission’s third party
verification requirements with respect to all 14 complainants.33

IV.

PROPOSED FORFEITURE

13.
Section 503(b)(1) of the Act states that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to
comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be
liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.34 Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act empowers the
Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000 for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of
any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act.35 For a violation to be willful, it
need not be intentional.36 In exercising our forfeiture authority, we are required to take into account “the
nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”37
In addition, the Commission has established forfeiture guidelines, which set forth base penalties for
certain violations, and identify criteria that we consider in exercising our discretion to adjust the base
upward or downward.38 Pursuant to the 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.39
14.
The Commission’s forfeiture guidelines currently establish a base forfeiture amount of
$40,000 for violations of our slamming rules and orders.40 In prior enforcement actions, the Commission
has warned carriers that misrepresentations such as the ones in the instant case are serious and that future
violations may receive significant upward adjustments. For example, most recently, in the Silv NAL, the
Commission stated that “[c]arriers should be on notice that the Commission considers violations such as
the ones discussed herein to be serious and that future violations may receive significant upward
adjustments.”41 The Commission must take swift and decisive enforcement action, including the
imposition of substantial monetary forfeitures, against Preferred and any other carrier found to have
engaged in misrepresentations to consumers.

33 See, e.g., New Century Telecom, Inc., Complaints regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s
Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 5911, 5913, para. 4 (CGB 2010) (finding that TPV recordings did
not include references to intrastate interLATA service and concluding that verifier did not obtain authorization to
switch interLATA service); United Telecom, Inc., Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s
Telecommunications Carrier
, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 5758 (CGB 2012).
34 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(2).
35 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2). See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission’s
Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation
, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) (adjusting the
maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,300,000 to $150,000/$1,500,000).
36 Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991).
37 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); see also The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Commission’s Rules
, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100–01, para. 27 (1997) (Forfeiture
Policy Statement
).

38 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8).
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Silv NAL, 25 FCC Rcd at 5186, para. 16.
6



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159





15.
Applying the $40,000 base forfeiture to each of the 14 apparent slamming violations
upon which this NAL is based would result in a forfeiture of $560,000. In this case, however, Preferred’s
conduct was particularly egregious, as demonstrated by our conclusion that the company also violated
Section 201(b) of the Act in 11 of the 14 cases at issue by misleading consumers into believing that
Preferred was calling on behalf of their current carrier. We therefore find that a significant upward
adjustment is appropriate here.42 In light of Preferred’s repeated egregious conduct, and given that we
specifically addressed in the Silv NAL two years ago the very kind of misrepresentation at issue here, we
propose to triple the base forfeiture of $40,000 for each of the 11 apparent egregious violations at issue in
this NAL—the unauthorized changes involving misrepresentations—making the penalty for each such
violation $120,000. We recognize that this adjustment is greater than that the Commission has imposed
in other cases involving similar conduct, but we find that an overall penalty of this magnitude is
appropriate given our prior warnings, and the apparently egregious and repeated violations at issue here.
Thus, the total forfeiture we propose for Preferred’s conduct is $1,440,000.43

V.

CONCLUSION

16.
Based on the facts and record before us, we have determined that Preferred Long
Distance, Inc. has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 201(b) and 258 of the
Communications Act and Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules.

VI.

ORDERING CLAUSES

17.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80,
that Preferred Long Distance, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this

APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
FORFEITURE

in the amount of one million four hundred forty thousand dollars ($1,440,000) for willful
and repeated violations of Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 258, and Section
64.1120 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.
18.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s
rules,44 within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, Preferred Long Distance, Inc.

SHALL PAY

the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or

SHALL FILE

a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
19.
Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and FRN referenced above. Preferred Long
Distance, Inc. shall send electronic notification of payment to Johnny Drake at johnny.drake@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.45 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

42 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures;
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17117, Appendix A, Section II.
43 BDP’s telemarketer represented that it was affiliated with the customers’ existing carriers. BDP, 15 FCC Rcd at
14468, para. 15. The Commission found that the telemarketer repeatedly deceived consumers as to BDP’s identity
and the nature of its service, and imposed a $40,000 forfeiture for each instance of slamming and an additional
$40,000 forfeiture for each instance in which BDP engaged in an unjust and unreasonable telemarketing practice.
44 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
45 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
7



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159





(payment type code). Below are additional instructions you should follow based on the form of payment
you select:

Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000, or sent via overnight mail to US Bank—Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-
GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire transfer and ensure
appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to US Bank at
(314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on
FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment.
The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank—
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101.
Any request for full payment 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 20554.46 If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please contact the
Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail,
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
20.
The response, if any, must be mailed both to the Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement
Bureau—Telecommunications Consumers Division, and to Richard A. Hindman, Chief,
Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the
caption.
21.
The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a
claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-
year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3)
some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial
status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
financial documentation submitted.






46 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
8



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159





22.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and First Class Mail to the Company
at 16830 Ventura Blvd, Suite 350, Encino, CA 91436.







FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION







Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary
9



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-159


APPENDIX


Complainant

Date of slam

Violation(s)

A. Burton
1/9/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S3321288
F. Littleton
1/16/12
Section 258
12-S3409767
A. Russo
1/30/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S3353014
J. Slotnick
2/7/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S3399206
D. Smith
2/20/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S3373425
W. Legler
3/30/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S003492
G. Busch
4/27/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S3473516
P. Almon
5/11/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S3454906
D. Williams
6/1/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S3413396
J. Dyer
7/13/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S3488150
B. Schneider
7/23/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S003459
J. Ariza
6/14/12
Section 258
12-S003483
B. Littmann
8/6/12
Section 258
12-S3486508
M. Tice
8/14/12
Sections 201(b) and 258
12-S003505





Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.