Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

FCC to Fine Net One Intl $1.6M for Billing Customers After Cancelation

Download Options

Released: July 15, 2014

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of


File No.: EB-TCD-12-00000418



Net One International, Inc.


NAL/Acct. No.: 201432170010


Apparent Liability for Forfeiture


FRN: 0004337556


Adopted: July 11, 2014


July 15, 2014

By the Commission:




We propose a penalty of $1,600,000 against Net One International, Inc. (Net One or

Company), for apparently billing consumers for unauthorized charges and fees purportedly in connection

with long distance telephone service—a practice commonly known as “cramming.” Consumers explained

that Net One charged them for services and “late fees” after they had affirmatively cancelled their service

and paid their final bills. Indeed, many consumers complained that the Company threatened them with

collection actions if they did not pay charges they had not authorized. The Commission is committed to

protecting consumers against cramming and will take aggressive action against carriers that perpetrate

such unjust and unreasonable acts. We propose this penalty after evaluating over 100 consumer

complaints against Net One as part of our ongoing effort to protect consumers from being charged by

carriers for services they did not authorize.




Net One2 is a toll reseller that offers interexchange and international service.3 The

Company has offices at 6931 University Blvd., Winter Park, Florida 32792.4


The Bureau reviewed over 100 consumer complaints filed against Net One with the

Federal Communications Commission (Commission), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the

Better Business Bureau (BBB).5 Complainants allege that while they were once customers of Net One, in

1 This case was formerly assigned the file number EB-11-TC-063. In January 2012, the Enforcement Bureau’s

Telecommunications Consumers Division assigned the case a new file number.

2 This carrier’s name is at times spelled “NetOne” in consumer complaints, and elsewhere, due to the way it appears

on the Company’s letterhead.

3 Net One is a common carrier providing telecommunications services. The Company was granted international

Section 214 authority on July 3, 1997. See ITC-214-19970516-00273.

4 Net One also uses the following addresses: P.O. Box 4970, Winter Park, FL 32793 (on the FCC Form 499-A) and

P.O. Box 863511, Orlando, FL 32886-3511 (on invoices). Samer Charani is the President and Chief Executive

Officer of Net One, Mahmoud Amir Elmasri is the Vice President, and El Bashir Alaoui Hichami is the Treasurer.

5 See consumer complaints on file in EB-TCD-12-0000418.


Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100

many cases the Company continued to bill them long after they had paid their final bill and notified Net

One’s customer service department that they were cancelling their accounts.6


Due to the large number of consumer complaints filed against the Company and the

alleged misconduct evidenced by those complaints,7 the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau (Bureau)

initiated an investigation of Net One’s practices by issuing a letter of inquiry (LOI) to the Company.8 Net

One failed to submit a timely response to the LOI, and the Bureau released a Notice of Apparent Liability

for Forfeiture proposing a $25,000 forfeiture based on the Company’s failure to respond to a Commission

order.9 Subsequently, the Bureau released a Forfeiture Order affirming the $25,000 forfeiture.10 Following

the 2011 Net One NAL, consumers continued to file complaints against Net One, alleging similar instances

of unauthorized charges.




Based on the evidence before us, we find that Net One apparently willfully and

repeatedly violated Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).11 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

hereby declared to be unlawful.”12

The Commission has found that the inclusion of unauthorized charges

and fees on consumers’ telephone bills—or “cramming”—is an “unjust and unreasonable” practice under

Section 201(b).13 Cramming can occur when carriers place unauthorized charges on their own telephone


6 Net One’s invoices provide a customer service toll-free number and a website address, The

website, which contains almost no information other than a message indicating it is in the process of “being

reworked,” lists a different toll-free number for customer service. See (last visited

June 30, 2014).

7 Approximately 80 consumer complaints against Net One for unauthorized charges were filed with the Commission

in 2010, which led to our initial investigation of the Company. Additional consumer complaints about the Company

have been filed intermittently. This NAL is based on 20 complaints filed recently with the Commission and the

Better Business Bureau. Many complaints allege multiple instances of unauthorized charges.

8 See Letter from Richard A. Hindman, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau,

FCC, to Samer Charani, President and Chief Executive Officer, Net One (July 15, 2011) (on file in EB-TCD-12-


9 Net One International, et al., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 16493 (Enf. Bur.

2011) (2011 Net One NAL). Following the issuance of the 2011 Net One NAL, Net One submitted an incomplete

LOI response to the Bureau.

10 Net One International, et al., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Order of Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 264 (Enf. Bur.

2014) (Net One Forfeiture Order).

On February 13, 2014, Net One filed a petition for reconsideration. See E-mail

from Thomas Gainor, Moffa, Gainor & Sutton PA, to Mika Savir, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications

Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Feb. 13, 2014, 18:56 EDT). The petition remains pending.

11 47 U.S.C. § 201(b).



13 See, e.g., Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 14-58, 2014 WL

1778549, at *5, para. 14 (May 5, 2014) (Central NAL); U.S. Telecom Long Distance, Inc., Notice of Apparent

Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 823, 829, para. 14 (2014) (USTLD NAL); Consumer Telcom, Inc., Notice of

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 17196, 17202, para. 15 (2013) (CTI NAL); Advantage Telecomms.,

Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 6843, 6849, para. 16 (2013) (Advantage NAL); see

also Long Distance Direct, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd

3297, 3302, para. 14 (2000) (LDDI MO&O) (finding that the company’s practice of cramming membership and




Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100


During the course of its investigation, the Bureau reviewed over 100 consumer

complaints alleging, among other things, that Net One billed consumers for long distance service after they

had cancelled their service with Net One and paid their final bill. Some consumers explain that after

closing their accounts with Net One, the Company continued to charge them, and often assessed late fees

which compounded month after month. Other consumers state that Net One refused to stop billing them

unless they paid additional charges and fees which were not authorized in the first place. For example:

Complainant Ahmed stopped using Net One when he became a CenturyLink subscriber in

January 2013.15 Mr. Ahmed repeatedly called Net One customer service to cancel his account.

Nevertheless, Net One continued to bill Mr. Ahmed monthly, claiming that they could not cancel

his account because they could not access his “account information.” Finally, Net One agreed to

stop billing him if he would pay an additional $10.99. Mr. Ahmed explains that “the customer

agent asked me to pay $10.99 and that would stop billing statements. I paid the amount at the

time but the monthly billing never stopped . . . . [N]ow they want me to [pay] $25.00 including

$10.00 of late fee charges otherwise they would send the bill to collection agency.”16

Complainant Bhatti, now an AT&T customer, “tried to cancel the Net One service. Net One

states that they cannot cancel his service.”17 Mr. Bhatti, who no longer uses Net One, repeatedly

asked Net One customer service to cancel his account, but they are “still sending [him] bills.”18

Complainant Birouty tried numerous times to cancel his parents’ account with Net One.19 He

explains that initially, on September 16, 2013, “I told them to cancel my parents account. [I]

talked to a gentleman who told me there is an outstanding balance of $15.02 that must be paid

before closing the account . . . . I told him I will pay it, but to close the account. He said . . . as

soon as they receive my payment they will close the account. I sent in the payment the same


One month later they “received a bill from NetOne that showed my payment was

received in full and they did not close my account, but rather they levied another $10 late fee.”

He called Net One customer service to ask why the account was not closed, and the customer

service representative “said that my account cannot be closed because it has an outstanding

balance that I have to pay.”21 The Net One representative told him that she could not close his

account because only Mohamed Abdel Ghani is authorized to close accounts. On October 24,

2013, Mr. Birouty spoke with Mr. Ghani, who “would not close that account [but] . . . said he

would remove all charges and I would receive a $0 [invoice] now and for every month and would

only ever get billed if we used the [service].” Despite the fact that Mr. Ghani assured Mr. Birouty

(Continued from previous page)

other unauthorized fees on consumer telephone bills was an unjust and unreasonable practice in connection with

communications services).

14 See Advantage NAL at 6850, para. 17.

15 Complaint from M. Ahmed.

16 Id.

17 Complaint from M. Bhatti.

18 Id. These bills have no charges for long distance calls; they are just late fees and other fees. The most recent bill

was for over $200. Id.

19 Complaint from I. Birouty.

20 Id.

21 Id.



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100

that the balance was $0, and they would be charged only if they resumed using the service, Net

One billed the Biroutys an additional $30.15.22

Complainant Chakkala had a similar experience with Net One. He explains, “I have attempted to

cancel my account . . . on numerous occasions. Thus far, there has been no resolution on the

matter . . . . A representative for [Net One,] Mr. Mohammed Abdelghany, provided me with a

‘cancellation fee’ of $40.00 in order to terminate my account. I paid the stated cancellation fee

only to continue receiving bills.”23

Complainant Elgowainy explains that Net One called him and offered a calling package for

international calls with a “14 day money back guarantee.”24 Because the plan turned out to be

more expensive than he anticipated, Mr. Elgowainy tried to cancel the Net One plan the following

day and have his money refunded, but his request to cancel was refused because, according to Net

One, it was “not a good reason to cancel.”25

Complainant El-Nakhal tried to cancel Net One’s service in September 2012. He called the Net

One customer service representative several times, but the Company continued to bill him.

Customer service finally agreed to cancel his account and he paid a final bill of $8.21. Then he

“received a new bill.”26 He explains that “Netone refuses to cancel the service unless I pay $10.

They threatened me with collection.”27 Mr. El-Nakhal, now an AT&T customer, has been

“receiving an increasing monthly bill from NET one. We try to call every month. No answer and

no return calls.”28

Complainant Foster called Net One to cancel her account on February 12, 2013.29 She was told

that she would not be charged as long as she did not use the service, and she paid her account in

full.30 She explains, “I kept getting bills & did not use the company’s services. Wrote 2 letters &

sent certified telling them that I canceled in Feb. & that I owe nothing. I didn’t get a response.

Called on 12/7/13 [and, eventually, was told that] I was supposed to call every month to reverse

the monthly charges. I stated why do I need to do that when I canceled in Feb. . . . He stated that

I need to pay my account in full in order to cancel. I have already done that in Feb. & and that I

have sent letters about this. He said he could do nothing for me. . . .”31 Since then, Net One

continued to bill Ms. Foster for a total of $167.76. 32 Subsequently, Ms. Foster explains, “a

representative from Net One . . . left me a voicemail informing me that I do not have to pay. I

22 Id. Net One eventually charged the Biroutys $75.23, and they settled for the sum of $37.61 after Net One finally

agreed to cancel the account on February 7, 2014.

23 Complaint from J. Chakkala.

24 Complaint from A. Elgowainy.

25 Id.

26 Complaint from H. El-Nakhal.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Complaint from D. Foster.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 Id.



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100

STILL GOT ANOTHER INVOICE AGAIN. . . . NetOne did credit the account $167.76 BUT are

still charging me $3.11 [per month] and will keep sending me invoices to pay. I WANT THEM


Complainant George, now a Comcast customer, explains “I called customer service [to inform

Net One that I was cancelling its service] and they gave me an ‘access number’ to call but that did

not work. They assured me that if I didn’t use their access number I would not be charged. So I

have not made any calls but every month they keep piling on taxes and late fees.”34

Notwithstanding numerous attempts to cancel the service, “NetOne keeps billing . . . even though

there are ZERO calls . . . just taxes and ‘late fees.’ I have called their customer service a number

of times . . . .”

Complainant Gopalan, a Net One international prepaid calling card customer, discovered that Net

One had opened a separate long distance account for him without his permission. After Net One

sent him several bills, Mr. Gopalan repeatedly called to cancel the new account. “The Customer

Service person agreed to close the account and credit the balance . . . . [After calling again] the

Customer Service person I spoke to . . . said the account was still open, and agreed to close it and

credit the balance shown on the bill . . . . I received another bill from NetOne . . . . I again called .

. . the same customer service person . . . said that he will close the account immediately and give

credit . . . . I have now received another bill from NetOne.”35

Complainant Mattam explains, “I have called on various occasions to cancel our services with

NetOne . . . . After speaking to their [customer service] representative it would seem as if my

service has been ended, however, I am still being billed by this company every single month. Not

only are we still being charged for a service that we have cancelled, we are still being charged

administrative fees including late fees and printing fees.”36

Complainant Towfeles explains that after she closed her account and paid her final bill in January

2013, Net One reopened her account and “[t]hey kept charging me about $18 a month for the past

7 months, including taxes and late fees every month until the balance has reached $120.07 as of

October 2013 . . . . They do admit . . . that their account shows that we paid the full balance in

January 2013. Despite many calls [to customer service] and despite talking to multiple people, . .

. they still insist that we owe this amount and keep threatening to send it to collection.”37

Other complainants offer similar experiences in trying to cancel their Net One accounts and finding that

Net One continued to charge them for service, late fees, and other charges.38

33 Id.

34 Complaint from S. George.

35 Complaint from B. Gopalan.

36 Complaint from T. Mattam.

37 Complaint from M. Towfeles.

38 See, e.g., Complaint from S. Batarseh (“This has been going on for months now [after I cancelled service last

year] they are still charging me monthly service fees.”); Complaint from J. Geevarghese (“Net One . . . keeps billing

me and refuses to stop billing me . . . . I do not want to pay for service that was not provided to me.”); Complaint

from B. Hadeed (“This company has been billing me and adding late charges falsely . . . .We called customer service

[to cancel and resolve this issue] and each time it was a very unprofessional rep. that provides no help . . . . I want

this company to stop sending us their false bills with charges we never had in the first place.”); Complaint from M.




Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100


Based on the evidence from the investigation, we conclude that Net One did not have

authorization to continue billing consumers after they cancelled their service. After a consumer cancels his

or her account and has paid any outstanding charges due and owing, any further charges by a carrier are

inherently unjust and unreasonable. Accordingly, we find that Net One’s practices with respect to these

consumers unjust and unreasonable and an apparent violation of Section 201(b) of the Act.39




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.40

Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act empowers the

Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000 for any violation occurring before September 13,

2013, and $160,000 for any violations occurring on or after that date, for each willful or repeated

violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act.41 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.”42 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 in determining the penalties to apply in any given case.43

(Continued from previous page)

Haughton (“I was with Netone International for over 5 years . . . . I have been calling and requesting [cancellation

because] I don’t have the number I registered my phone with them any longer . . . and I made about 8 calls [asking]

why they are still billing me . . . . [E]very month they add 10.00 to 12.00 on the bill for the service I don’t even

have.”); Complaint from M. Karam ( “continued to receive a bill with late fees” months after cancelling and paying

the final bill); Complaint from H. Nakhoul (not included in the Appendix) (“cancelled [her] service with Net One

almost two years ago . . . [and she] was told this bill will likely climb to $500 if she doesn’t pay it.”); Complaint

from D. Papapitiya (“I have called them and asked repeatedly to cancel my account, and they send bills . . . for

monthly fee[s] and followed by additional fees.”); Complaint from E. Sakkal (not included in the Appendix) (“They

charged me for services after I wrote to them to discontinue my service.”); Complaint from M. Sibay (“[Net One]

continue[s] adding more amounts to a bill for services I did not ask for and I have asked [them] to stop or cancel

whatever service they think they are offering me. We had a prepaid service and then [Net One] inexplicably started

billing me monthly charges which are not explained . . . . [W]e spoke with multiple reps who promised to resolve

this issue . . . . I officially requested [cancellation of this service which I had not authorized.]”); Complaint from S.

Tantawy (“I ended my contract with the company a year ago . . . . They did not stop sending me bills [with] late

fees and accumulated charges . . . which they claim is $29.”); Complaint from L. Wilwerding (“I cancelled this

service months ago . . . [but] they have been sending me bills, adding on late fees and demanding payment.”).

39 The Appendix identifies the 20 complaints, evidencing apparent violations of Section 201(b) of the Act occurring

in the past 12 months that form the basis of the proposed forfeiture.

Most of the consumer complaints describe

several instances of cramming; however, we are assessing a forfeiture for one instance per complaint.

40 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1).

41 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act

of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA), requires the Commission to adjust its forfeiture penalties

periodically for inflation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note (4). The Commission most recently adjusted its penalties to

account for inflation in 2013. See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil

Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, 28 FCC Rcd 10785 (Enf. Bur. 2013); see also Inflation Adjustment of

Monetary Penalties, 78 Fed. Reg. 49,370–01 (Aug. 14, 2013) (setting September 13, 2013, as the effective date for

the increases). The base forfeiture amount for cramming is still $40,000.

42 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).

43 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8), Note to paragraph (b)(8).



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100

Under 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.44


The Commission’s forfeiture guidelines provide no base forfeiture for cramming;

however, the Commission has established a $40,000 base forfeiture for cramming violations.45 Applying

the $40,000 base forfeiture to each of the 20 cramming violations46 would result in a forfeiture of



Given the facts presented here, we believe that an upward adjustment is warranted. As

the Commission reiterated in the Central NAL, “we may propose more significant forfeitures in the future

as high as necessary, within the range of our statutory authority, to ensure that such companies do not

charge consumers for unauthorized services.”47 Net One apparently engaged in cramming repeatedly,

including placing unauthorized charges on consumers’ telephone bills multiple times—indeed, we have

reviewed many consumer complaints alleging improper conduct on Net One’s part. We also note that the

Bureau began this cramming investigation in 2011 and previously issued the 2011 Net One NAL based on

the Company’s failure to respond to the Bureau’s inquiries, yet Net One has nevertheless continued to

engage in the same conduct: imposing unauthorized charges on consumers’ bills and preventing

consumers from closing their accounts. Under Section 503, we may take into account the egregious and

repeated nature of Net One’s actions and, consistent with our recent enforcement actions,48 upwardly

adjust the proposed forfeiture for its apparent cramming violations.49 Given the egregious circumstances

here and the extent of Net One’s improper conduct and the longstanding nature of Net One’s cramming

practices, all in the face of the repeated warnings of the Commission that cramming would not be

tolerated, we determine that an upward adjustment of $800,000 is appropriate here. Accordingly, the total

forfeiture we propose for Net One’s conduct is $1,600,000.




Based on the facts and record before us, we have determined that Net One International,

Inc. has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended.

44 Id.

45 See LDDI MO&O, 15 FCC Rcd at 3304, para. 19 (affirming the $40,000 penalty for cramming imposed by the

Commission in the forfeiture order); Central NAL. 2014 WL 1778549, at *10, para. 25; USTLD NAL, 29 FCC Rcd

at 835, para. 24; CTI NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 17207, para. 26.

46 The Commission has made clear that each unauthorized charge a carrier places on a consumer’s bill—or

“cram”—constitutes a separate and distinct violation of Section 201(b). See CTI NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 17208, n.79

(citing NOS Commc’ns, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1833 (2001)); Central NAL,

2014 WL 1778549, at n.84 (same); USTLD NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 836, n.94 (same). Based on the record in the

instant case, we decline to exercise our discretion in that way at this time. Rather, we apply an upward adjustment

to the proposed forfeiture amount to take into account these additional violations.

47 Central NAL, 2014 WL 1778549, at *11, para. 28 (citing Main Street Telephone Co., Notice of Apparent

Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 8853, 8861, para. 24 (2011)). See also USTLD NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 837, para.

27 (same); CTI NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 17207, para. 29 (same).

48 See, e.g., Central NAL. 2014 WL 1778549, at *11, para. 28; USTLD NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 837, para. 27; CTI

NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 17207, para. 29; Main Street Telephone Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26

FCC Rcd 8853, 8861, para. 24 (2011); VoiceNet Telephone, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26

FCC Rcd 8874, 8882, para. 24 (2011); Cheap2Dial Telephone Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26

FCC Rcd 8863, 8872, para. 25 (2011); Norristown Telephone Co., LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,

26 FCC Rcd 8844, 8851, para. 23 (2011).

49 In the future we may also seek to revoke a carrier’s authorization. See CCN Revocation Order, 13 FCC Rcd 13599

(1998) (revoking a company’s operating authority under Section 214 for repeatedly slamming consumers).



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100




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 Net One International, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR

FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,600,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 201(b) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 201(b).


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s

rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for

Forfeiture, Net One International, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL

FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.


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. Net One

International, Inc. shall send electronic notification of payment to Johnny Drake at

on the date said payment is made. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159

(Remittance Advice) must be submitted.50 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 Net One International, Inc. should follow based

on the form of payment it selects:

Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the

Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the

completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications Commission,

P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S.

Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza,

St. Louis, MO 63101.

Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving

bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire

transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form

159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the

wire transfer is initiated.

Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card

information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to

authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then be

mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis,

MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox

#979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.


Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent


Chief Financial Officer — Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th

Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.51 If Net One International, Inc. has questions

regarding payment procedures, it can contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-

480-3201, or by e-mail,

50 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at

51 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.



Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100


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.


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.


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 Net One

International, Inc.’s attorney, Thomas R. Gainor, Law Offices of Moffa, Gainor, and Sutton, P.A., One

Financial Plaza, Suite 2202, 100 Southeast Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394.


Marlene H. Dortch




Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-100


Apparent Violations of Section 201(b) of the Act


Billing date


E. Sakkal



M. Towfeles



A. Elgowainy



B. Hadeed



I. Birouty



L. Wilwerding



M. Bhatti



J. Chakkala



D. Foster



M. Karam



S. Tantawy



B. Gopalan



M. Ahmed



J. Geevarghese



T. Mattam



S. Batarseh



H. El-Nakhal



M. Haughton



D. Panapitiya



M. Sibay



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.


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.