FCC Web Documents citing 64.2009

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4507 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170011 FRN: 0014731822 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd'' or ``Amp'd Mobile'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the subpart governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.pdf
  • 0003772274 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that KLM Telephone Company, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively ``KLM''), apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he had personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.pdf
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4261 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170035 FRN:0001544790 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation, (``Easterbrooke Cellular'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.pdf
  • Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4483 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0037 FRN: 0005013669 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that CTC Communications Corporation (``CTC'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4500 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0038 FRN 0004380200 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. (``Shoreham'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its CPNI compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules regarding the use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.pdf
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4496 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170055 FRN: 0004272373 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-3411 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170023 FRN: 0004337218 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (``Oneida'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its annual certification explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.pdf
  • directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). On January 27, 2007, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Burke's Garden directing Burke's Garden to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Burke's Garden for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Burke's Garden filed a response to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4518 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0041 FRN: 0003748340 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Mechanicsville Telephone Company (``Mechanicsville Telephone'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an annual certificate signed by a corporate officer stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4111 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170017 FRN: 0003765740 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a/ A-1 Communications (``Audio-Video'' ) apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.pdf
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry (``LOIs'') to several carriers, including Connect, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Connect did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to Connect for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On April 27, 2007, Connect submitted several documents in response to the NAL, including a letter from its President, Byron T. Young, which explains, among
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4731 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170054 FRN: 0013394028 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone (``Connect'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.pdf
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry (``LOIs'') to several carriers, including PhoneCo, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. PhoneCo did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to PhoneCo for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On June 27, 2007, PhoneCo submitted a response to the NAL, which explains the Company's reasons for failing to respond to the LOI. PhoneCo states
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.pdf
  • Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4006 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0076 FRN: 0003743119 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (``CTI'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-6030 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0009 FRN: 0007704166 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC (``River City Wireless'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.pdf
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and AT&T Inc. (``AT&T''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') regarding AT&T Corp.'s compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a). The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.pdf
  • Liberty Phones is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. BACKGROUND Liberty Phones, an Arkansas-based company authorized to provide local and interexchange telecommunications services since 2002, provides prepaid residential and small business telephone service. On February 6, 2006, Liberty Phones submitted to the Bureau a Certificate of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') filing pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Upon checking, Bureau staff learned there was no record of Liberty Phones registering with the Commission or submitting Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (FCC Form 499) to the Universal Service Administrative Company (``USAC''), or making associated payments to the requisite federal regulatory programs. On May 31, 2007, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (``LOI'') to Liberty Phones
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') adopts the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and Cbeyond Communications, Inc. (``Cbeyond''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against Cbeyond for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act'') and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Consent decree terminates an investigation into Cbeyond's compliance with section 64.2007(a)(3) of the Commission's rules regarding customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). The Bureau and Cbeyond have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Based on the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.pdf
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-3543 NAL/Acct. No. 20083217 0003 FRN: 0004938064 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 29, 2007 Released: November 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. (``Dialaround'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit | P DA 08-171 January 29, 2008 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (``CPNI Certifications'') pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed no later than March 1, 2008, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On April
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.pdf
  • based on the caller's location. E911 also provides the call taker with the caller's call back number ... and in many cases, location information....'' Id. at 10251 ¶13 (footnotes omitted). See id. at 10246 n.2 (citing examples of VoIP customers futilely attempting to call 911 during emergency situations). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.20000 - 1.20008. See id. §§ 64.2001 - 64.2009. See id. §§ 64.601 - 64.608. See id. §§ 6.1 - 6.23 and §§ 7.1 - 7.23. See id. §§ 52.20 - 52.33 See id. § 54.706. See id. § 64.604. See id. § 52.17. See id. § 52.32. See id. § 64.1195. Id. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920 Federal Communications Commission DA
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.pdf
  • into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against CTC for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTC have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.pdf
  • to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). On December 5, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Manning directing Manning to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Manning for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Manning filed responses to the NAL on May
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.pdf
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). 2. On December 12, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Habla directing Habla to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Habla for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. The NAL was sent by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Wilson Communication Company, Inc. (``Wilson'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Wilson for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Wilson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Wilson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and WTC Communications, Inc. (``WTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against WTC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and WTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clearcom, Inc. (``Clearcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clearcom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clearcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clearcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Supply, Inc. (``TSI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telecom Supply, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TSI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CenCom, Inc. (``CenCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CenCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CenCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CenCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComSouth Telenet, Inc. (``ComSouth'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSouth Telenet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170168 FRN: 0005013699 ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. (``@Communications'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On September 2, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to @Communications asking @Communications whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for the calendar
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170102 FRN: 0004272373 ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 29, 2008, PriorityOne filed a certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules with the Commission's Secretary. In reviewing the certifications filed, the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. (``ComSouth'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComTech Solutions, LLC (``ComTech'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComTech Solutions, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComTech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. (``Nebraska'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nebraska's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nebraska have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Stanton Long Distance, LLC (``Stanton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Stanton Long Distance, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Stanton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Stanton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC (``NLD'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NLD's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NLD have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ligtel Communications, Inc. (``Ligtel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ligtel Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ligtel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ligtel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Texas Long Distance Company (``Southwest'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Texas Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Southwest have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. (``TCB'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCB's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TCB have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and RTC Communications Corp. (``RTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RTC Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Smithville Telecom, Inc. (``Smithville'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Smithville Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Smithville's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Smithville have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ASTAC Long Distance (``ASTAC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ASTAC Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ASTAC Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ASTAC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. (``Family Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Family Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Family Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.pdf
  • 200932170299 FRN: 0002381873 ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 6, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville (``Naperville'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Naperville a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0018509778 ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 5, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. (``Sweetser'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Sweetser a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clay County Communications, LLC (``Clay County'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clay County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clay County's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clay County have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. (``Giles-Craig'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Giles-Craig's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Giles-Craig have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.pdf
  • 200932170783 FRN: 0005024641 ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. (``TCO Network'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On September 5, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to TCO Network asking TCO Network whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.pdf
  • ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. (``Hinton'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Hinton a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170825 FRN: 0010103497 ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170086 FRN: 0005075403 ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. (``Momentum'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Momentum a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Evertek, Inc. (``Evertek'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Evertek, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Evertek's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Evertek have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Topsham Communications, LLC (``Topsham'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Topsham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Topsham's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Topsham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.pdf
  • Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications (``B & B Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B & B Communications Network, Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & B Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B & B Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GBT Communications, Inc. (``GBT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GBT Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GBT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GBT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. (``Cedar-Wapsie'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cedar-Wapsie's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cedar-Wapsie have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NMRSA6-III Partnership (``NMRSA6-III'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NMRSA6-III Partnership for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NMRSA6-III's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NMRSA6-III have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. (``SOTI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SOTI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and SOTI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Peetz Communications, LLC (``Peetz'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Peetz Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Peetz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Peetz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Northeast Competitive Access Provider (``NCAP'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Northeast Competitive Access Provider for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCAP's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NCAP have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Carr Communications, Inc. (``Carr'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Carr Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carr's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Carr have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. (``Ogden'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ogden's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ogden have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westphalia Communications, Inc. (``Westphalia'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westphalia Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westphalia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westphalia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and SpringCom, Inc. (``SpringCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against SpringCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SpringCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and SpringCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.pdf
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and AT&T, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates (collectively ``AT&T'' or ``the AT&T Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Bureau against the AT&T Companies for possible violation of section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(3)(ii), 64.2008(d)(3)(v) and 64.2009(a) of the Federal Communication Commission's (``Commission'') rules relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and sections 201(b) and 254 of the Act, and sections 54.712(a), 69.131 and 69.158 of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. The Bureau and the AT&T Companies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fort Mojave Television, Inc. (``Fort Mojave'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fort Mojave Television, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fort Mojave's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fort Mojave have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and AP&T Wireless, Inc. (``AP&T'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against AP&T Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AP&T's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and AP&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Falcon1, Inc. (``Falcon1'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Falcon1 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Falcon1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Falcon1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TSC Communications, Inc. (``TSC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TSC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TSC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.pdf
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad, Inc. (``Cellular Abroad''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Cellular Abroad a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Cellular Abroad's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Cellular Abroad, we agree with Cellular Abroad that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Cellular Abroad is not a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The City of Daytona Beach (``Daytona Beach''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Daytona Beach a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Daytona Beach's apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Daytona Beach, we agree with Daytona Beach that Daytona Beach was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due. Accordingly, we
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.pdf
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC (``Nebraska Supercomm''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Nebraska Supercomm a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Nebraska Supercomm's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon new information provided by Nebraska Supercomm, we agree with Nebraska Supercomm that it did not have any telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.pdf
  • Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. (``Pilgrim''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Pilgrim a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Pilgrim's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Pilgrim, we agree with Pilgrim that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. During the 2007 calendar year, Pilgrim was
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.pdf
  • Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. (``Visionary''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Visionary a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Visionary's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Visionary, we agree with Visionary that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Visionary is not a telecommunications carrier, and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc (``Zicore''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Zicore a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Zicore's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Zicore, we agree with Zicore that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.pdf
  • Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc (``Isan''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Isan a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Isan's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Isan, we agree with Isan that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC (``Plains''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Plains a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Plains' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Plains, we agree with Plains that it had timely filed its CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate section
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound (``Orange''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Orange a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Orange's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Orange, we agree with Orange that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007 was
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. (``Freedom''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Freedom's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Freedom, we agree with Freedom that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007 was
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.pdf
  • this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company (``Allendale''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Allendale a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Allendale's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Allendale, we agree with Allendale that it had timely filed its annual CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.pdf
  • In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated (``Worldwide Marketing''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Worldwide Marketing a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Worldwide Marketing's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Worldwide Marketing, we agree with Worldwide Marketing that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance (``Clarks''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Clarks a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Clarks' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Clarks, we agree with Clarks that it was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due because it ceased offering telecommunications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit € D T DA 09-240 February 13, 2009 Enforcement Bureau Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) again reminds all companies subject to its CPNI rules of their obligation to file their CPNI Certification no later than March 1, 2009. Certifications must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided below. Background. On April 2, 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.pdf
  • 200932170027 FRN: 0017197344 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Big Telephone, Inc. (``Big Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Big Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.pdf
  • XXXX NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. (``Ben Lomand Rural'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand Rural is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170025 FRN: 0003729142 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ben Lomand Communications, LLC (``Ben Lomand'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170024 FRN: 0017992298 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Bellvoz Corp. (``Bellvoz'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bellvoz is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.pdf
  • 200932170023 FRN: 0004056602 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Bee Line Cable (``Bee Line'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bee Line is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170022 FRN: 0003802204 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc.(``Atlantic'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Atlantic is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., (``American Fiber'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that American Fiber is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170018 FRN: 0004914909 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Action Communications, Inc. (``Action'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Action is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.pdf
  • 001380018 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that 800 Response Information Services LLC (``800 Response'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that 800 Response is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170029 FRN: 0004319406 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. (``Buckeye'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Buckeye is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170030 FRN: 0003723061 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Cherokee Telephone Company (``Cherokee'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cherokee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0007408073 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that China Telecom (Americas) Corporation (``China Telecom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that China Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0004375184 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom (``Communications Venture'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Communications Venture is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0015250202 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications (``Aquis'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Aquis is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.pdf
  • 200932170039 FRN: 0003742467 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Consolidated Telephone Company (``Consolidated Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Consolidated Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0003736360 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Clear World Communications Corporation (``Clear World'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clear World is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170042 FRN: 0011443066 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. (``D.G.A.'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that D.G.A. is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170072 FRN: 0017399262 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Isan Telecom, Inc. (``Isan'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Isan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.pdf
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC (``Tennessee'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Tennessee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging (``Kitchen Productions'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Kitchen Productions is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0002323731 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. (``KanOkla Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that KanOkla Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170077 FRN: 0017294992 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Latino Telecom, Inc. (``Latino Telecom'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Latino Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170130 FRN: 0006357826 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Threshold Communications, Inc. (``Threshold'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Threshold is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170078 FRN: 0005413042 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Leflore Communications, Inc. (``Leflore'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Leflore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. (``Legacy Long Distance'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Legacy Long Distance is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.pdf
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. (``M & L Enterprises'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that M & L Enterprises is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0017410390 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC (``Liberty'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Liberty is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One (``Call One'') or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Call One is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.pdf
  • 200932170082 FRN: 0017194317 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that McClure Telephone Company (``McClure Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that McClure Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.pdf
  • 0003737137 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that VDL, Inc. d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers (``VDL'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that VDL is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.pdf
  • 0016201642 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe (``Broadstripe'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Broadstripe is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170138 FRN: 0010827806 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Volunteer First Services, LLC (``Volunteer'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Volunteer is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170085 FRN: 0007116403 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Commnet Wireless, LLC (``Commnet'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Commnet is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170086 FRN: 0005075403 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Momentum Telecom, Inc. (``Momentum'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Momentum is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0017238452 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated (``Worldwide Marketing'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Worldwide Marketing is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.pdf
  • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. (``Angel Communications'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Angel Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Data Radio Management Company, Inc. (``Data Radio Management'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Data Radio Management is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170142 FRN: 0004921219 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find the Scott C. MacIntyre (``MacIntyre'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that MacIntyre is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.pdf
  • 0002775765 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Edward Adams Associates, Inc. (``Edward Adams Associates'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Edward Adams Associates is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170145 FRN: 0011476751 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Zicore Services, Inc. (``Zicore'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Zicore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170148 FRN: 0009809278 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that SI2Way, Inc. (``SI2Way'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SI2Way is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170149 FRN: 0002696300 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Wayne Frank (``Frank'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Frank is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170152 FRN: 0005030630 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that James T. Hopper (``Hopper'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hopper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.pdf
  • EB-09-TC-194 NAL/Acct. No. 200932170153 FRN: 0005027701 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Arthur N. Sherman (``Sherman'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sherman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0001611110 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. (``Telebeeper'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telebeeper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.pdf
  • 200932170155 FRN: 0003965514 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find That Clifford E. Bade (``Clifford Bade'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clifford Bade is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.pdf
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company (``National Brands'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that National Brands is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170091 FRN: 0005043195 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Netcarrier Telecom, Inc.(``Netcarrier'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Netcarrier is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.pdf
  • 200932170092 FRN: 0010737641 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Network Innovations, Inc. (``Network Innovations'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Network Innovations is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170094 FRN: 0004311809 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Nunn Telephone Company (``Nunn'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Nunn is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.pdf
  • 200932170095 FRN: 0005605688 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that O. Richard Knutson (``O.R. Knutson'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that O.R. Knutson is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170096 FRN: 0017064544 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that One Touch India LLC (``One Touch'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that One Touch is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom(``Phillips County'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Phillips County is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0009783093 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Prime Time Ventures (``Prime Time Ventures'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Prime Time Ventures is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170102 FRN: 0004272373 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that PriorityOne is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170103 FRN: 0002317725 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that ProCom LMR, Inc. (``ProCom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ProCom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170104 FRN: 0005814157 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find the Protek Leasing Corp. (``Protek'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Protek is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170044 FRN: 0010393882 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that DAR Communications Corporation (``DAR'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that DAR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0003736188 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. (``Santa Rosa'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.pdf
  • 0005063615 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (``Santa Rosa'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.pdf
  • 200932170111 FRN: 0003758877 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. (``Santel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170112 FRN: 0017217548 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Securetel Network Inc. (``Securetel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Securetel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.pdf
  • 200932170114 FRN: 0014198253 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. (``Shreveport'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Shreveport is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.pdf
  • 200932170048 FRN: 0005093372 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Dixville Telephone Company (``Dixville Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Dixville Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.pdf
  • 0017199878 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that E & F Telecom, Inc. (``E & F Telecom'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that E & F Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.pdf
  • 0013321211 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, (``Eastern Colorado'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Eastern Colorado is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170052 FRN: 0004999223 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that EGIX, Inc. (``EGIX'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that EGIX is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.pdf
  • 001776457 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that South Central Wireless, Inc, dba SCTelcom (``SCTelcom'') or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SCTelcom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.pdf
  • 0018509752 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. (``Specialized Mobile Radio'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Specialized Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170225 FRN: 0018509133 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that BKT Telecom Corp. (``BKT'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that BKT is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.pdf
  • 0004330130 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies (``First Mile'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that First Mile is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170057 FRN: 0003770773 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Gabriel Wireless, LLC (``Gabriel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Gabriel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0009725748 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that T2 Communications, LLC (``T2 Communications'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that T2 Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170058 FRN: 0014872337 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ganoco, Inc. (``Ganoco'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ganoco is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.pdf
  • No. EB-09-TC-164 NAL/Acct. No. 200932170123 FRN: 0014225684 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Telchin Corporation (``Telchin'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telchin is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that General Mobile Radio Service, Inc. (``General Mobile Radio'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that General Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.pdf
  • 200932170064 FRN: 0004329348 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. (``Hartman'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hartman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170066 FRN: 0011107539 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Highland Communications, LLC (``Highland'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Highland is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.pdf
  • 200932170126 FRN: 0010635696 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC (``TeleSpan'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that TeleSpan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit l @ DA 09-9 January 7, 2009 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (CPNI Certifications) pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed annually between January 1 and March 1, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.pdf
  • we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC (``Freedom Communications''). On February 26, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom Communications a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Freedom Communications' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Freedom Communications, we agree with Freedom Communications that it had submitted, by mail, a complete CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year; although several pages
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.pdf
  • their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation regarding Verizon's compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1), and section 64.2007 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2007. II. BACKGROUND 2. On January 27, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, Verizon filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its opt-out mechanism for obtaining customers' approval for use of their customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). The notice stated that, on January 16, 2009, Verizon discovered that the total number of opt-out customers compiled by its vendor was greater than the number in its database by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BBG Communications, Inc. (``BBG Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BBG Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BBG Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BBG Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CMC Telecom, Inc. (``CMC Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CMC Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMC Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CMC Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and DialToneServices, L.P. (``DialToneServices'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against DialToneServices for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DialToneServices' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DialToneServices have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Faircall Corporation d/b/a 1-800 Faircall (``Faircall Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Faircall Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Faircall Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Faircall Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. (``GLC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GLC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GLC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.pdf
  • or ``Commission'') and Impact Network Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Impact Long Distance (``Impact Network Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Impact Network Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Impact Network Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Impact Network Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Northwest Telephone, Inc. (``NWT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Northwest Telephone, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NWT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NWT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NovoLink Communications, Inc. (``NovoLink Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NovoLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NovoLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NovoLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Opcom, Inc. d/b/a WCS Telecom (``Opcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Opcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Opcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Opcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. (``Orlando'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Orlando's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Orlando have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Quasar Communications Corporation (``Quasar Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Quasar Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quasar Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Quasar Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele Uno, Inc. (``Tele Uno'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele Uno for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Uno's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele Uno have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Arkadin, Inc. (``Arkadin'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Arkadin for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Arkadin's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Arkadin have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.pdf
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clarksville Mutual Tel. Co. d/b/a Clarksville Mutual Telephone Company (``Clarksville Mutual'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clarksville Mutual for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clarksville Mutual's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clarksville Mutual have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.pdf
  • E. Ritter Telephone Company, and Tri-County Tel. Co., Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Telephone Co., Inc. (collectively, ``Ritter'' or ``Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ritter for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ritter's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ritter have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lamar County Cellular, Inc. (``Lamar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lamar County Cellular, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lamar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lamar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Michigan Access, Inc. (``Michigan Access'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Michigan Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Michigan Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Michigan Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Reinbeck Municipal Telecommunications Utility (``Reinbeck Municipal'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Reinbeck Municipal for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reinbeck Municipal's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Reinbeck Municipal have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and US Telesis, Inc. (``US Telesis'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against US Telesis for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding US Telesis' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and US Telesis have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.pdf
  • Released: October 5, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and Global Information Technologies (``GIT''). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bureau against GIT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (``Commission'') rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and, among other things, section 254 of the Act and section 54.712(a) of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. The Bureau and GIT have negotiated the terms of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BroadRiver Communication Corporation (``BroadRiver'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BroadRiver Communication Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BroadRiver's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BroadRiver have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and B W Telcom Long Distance (``B W Telcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B W Telcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B W Telcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B W Telcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Comteck of Indiana, Inc. (``Comteck of Indiana'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Comteck of Indiana for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Comteck of Indiana's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Comteck of Indiana have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. (``Communications 1'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications 1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Communications 1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. (``Craw-Kan'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Craw-Kan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Craw-Kan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and DTC Cable, Inc. (``DTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against DTC Cable, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and FiberComm, L.C. (``FiberComm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against FiberComm, L.C. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FiberComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and FiberComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Glenwood Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Glenwood Long Distance (``Glenwood'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Glenwood for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Glenwood's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Glenwood have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. (``Hamilton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc.'s apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Hamilton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Home Long Distance, Inc. (``Home Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Home Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Home Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Home Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the Omnibus NAL, each of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GlobalNova, Inc. (``GlobalNova'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GlobalNova for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalNova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GlobalNova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Horizon Technology (``Horizon'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Horizon Technology for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Horizon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Horizon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and KeyArt Communications, Inc. (``KeyArt'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KeyArt Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KeyArt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KeyArt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and MTC Communications, Inc. (``MTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against MTC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding MTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and MTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NNTC Wireless, LLC (``NNTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NNTC Wireless, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NNTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NNTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nunn Communications, LLC (``Nunn Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nunn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nunn Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nunn Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Phillips County Communications, LLC (``Phillips'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Phillips County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Phillips's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Phillips have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.pdf
  • ``Commission'') and Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance (``Pioneer'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pioneer's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pioneer have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Roggen Telephone Enterprises, Inc. (``RTE'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RTE for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RTE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Prairie Networks, LLC (``Prairie Networks'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Prairie Networks, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Prairie Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Prairie Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company (``Toledo'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toledo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Toledo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.pdf
  • & TV, Inc. (``Vernon Communications'' or ``Company''). Vernon Communications was formerly a subsidiary of Mutual Telephone Company. The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Vernon Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Vernon Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mutual Telephone Company, on behalf of Vernon Communications, have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and WUE, Inc. (``WUE'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against WUE, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WUE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and WUE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Andina Corporation (``Andina Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Andina Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Andina Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Andina Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Answer Fort Smith, Inc. (``Answer Fort Smith'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Answer Fort Smith for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answer Fort Smith's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Answer Fort Smith have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Korea Telecom America, Inc. (``Korea Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Korea Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Korea Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Korea Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CMOLS, LLC (``CMOLS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CMOLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMOLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CMOLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Sound of Tri-State (``Tri-State'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tri-State for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-State's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tri-State have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Bingo Consulting, LLC (``Bingo'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bingo for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bingo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bingo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Paging and Telemessaging, Inc. (``Advanced Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Airwaves Communications, Inc. (``Airwaves Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Airwaves Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Airwaves Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Airwaves Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Axxis Communications, Inc., (``Axxis Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Axxis Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Axxis Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Axxis Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dialaround Enterprises Inc. (``Dialaround''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dialaround for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Dialaround's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dialaround have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC (``River City Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against River City Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding River City Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and River City Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Western Communications Services, Inc. (``Western Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Western Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Western Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Western Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westside Paging, Inc. d/b/a Westside Communications (``Westside Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westside Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westside Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westside Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ray's Electronics, Inc. (``Ray's Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ray's Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ray's Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ray's Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Page Plus, Inc. (``Page Plus'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Page Plus for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Page Plus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Page Plus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobile Radio Communications, Inc. d/b/a MobilFone (``Mobile Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobile Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobile Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Huffman Communications (``Huffman'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Huffman for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huffman's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Huffman have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Kotana Communications, Inc. (``Kotana Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Kotana Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kotana Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Kotana Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1479A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1479A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Teleplex, Inc. d/b/a Alert Communications (``Teleplex'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Teleplex for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teleplex's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Teleplex have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Matthews Answering Service, Inc. (``Matthews Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Matthews Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Matthews Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Matthews Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lancaster Radio Paging, Inc. d/b/a Access Telecommunications Network (``Lancaster Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lancaster Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lancaster Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lancaster Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.pdf
  • or ``Commission'') and UIDC Telecom Division d/b/a Rio Networks f/k/a Rio Communications, Inc. (``Rio Networks'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Rio Networks for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Rio Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Rio Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Satellite Services, Inc. (``International Satellite Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Satellite Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Satellite Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Satellite Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westel, Inc. (``Westel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and eKit.com, Inc. (``eKit.com'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against eKit.com for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding eKit.com's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and eKit.com have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CresComm Services, Inc. d/b/a Crescent Communications Co. (``CresComm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CresComm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CresComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CresComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Alpha Message Center, Inc. (``Alpha Message'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alpha Message for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alpha Message's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Alpha Message have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clark Communications, Inc. (``Clark Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clark Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clark Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clark Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Bryan 800 Communications, Inc. (``Bryan 800'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bryan 800 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bryan 800's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bryan 800 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cottonwood Holdings Corporation d/b/a Beep West Radio Paging (``Cottonwood Holdings'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cottonwood Holdings for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cottonwood Holdings' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cottonwood Holdings have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fones West Digital Systems, Inc. d/b/a Lynx Wireless (``Fones West'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fones West for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fones West's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fones West have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Janaslani Enterprises, LLC (``Janaslani'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Janaslani Enterprises, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Janaslani's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Janaslani have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fluent Inc. (``Fluent'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fluent for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fluent's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fluent have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.pdf
  • or ``Commission'') and The Money Store, LP d/b/a The Money Box (``The Money Store'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against The Money Store for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Money Store's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and The Money Store have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and The Contact Network, Inc. d/b/a InLine (``The Contact Network'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against The Contact Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Contact Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and The Contact Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Total Communication Systems, Inc. (``Total Communication Systems'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Total Communication Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Total Communication Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Total Communication Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Basin Communications Systems, Inc. (``Basin Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Basin Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Basin Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Basin Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telstar Communications, Inc. (``Telstar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telstar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telstar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telstar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Terral Telephone Company, Inc. (``Terral Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Terral Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Terral Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Terral Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Signal Telecommunications, Inc. (``Signal Telecommunications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Signal Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Signal Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Signal Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.pdf
  • Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively ``KLM''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KLM for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding KLM's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KLM have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ninetel, Inc. (``Ninetel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ninetel, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ninetel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ninetel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Oratel, Inc. (``Oratel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Oratel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Oratel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Oratel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ONS-Telecom, LLC (``ONS-Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ONS-Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ONS-Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ONS-Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.pdf
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and David L. English d/b/a Mobile Communications Services (``David L. English'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against David L. English for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding David L. English's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and David L. English have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Communications Specialists, Inc. (``Communications Specialist'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Communications Specialist for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications Specialists' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Communications Specialists have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Flower City Paging, Inc. (``Flower City'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Flower City Paging, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Flower City's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Flower City have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and C & C Communications (``C & C'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against C & C for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding C & C's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and C & C have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.pdf
  • B & C Mobile Communications, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Mobile (``B & C Mobile'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B & C Mobile for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & C Mobile's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B & C Mobile have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Relay Communications Corporation (``Relay Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Relay Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Relay Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Relay Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Critical Alert Systems, LLC, on behalf of Aroostook Paging, Inc. (``Aroostook'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Aroostook for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Aroostook's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Aroostook have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lloyd Hoff Holding Corporation d/b/a Black Bear Paging (``Lloyd Hoff'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lloyd Hoff for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lloyd Hoff's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lloyd Hoff have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lucky Communications, Inc. (``Lucky Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lucky Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lucky Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lucky Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Quick-Tel, Inc. (``Quick-Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Quick-Tel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quick-Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Quick-Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NexGen Integrated Communications, L.L.C. (``NexGen Integrated Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NexGen Integrated Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NexGen Integrated Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NexGen Integrated Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Iscom, Inc. (``Iscom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Iscom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Iscom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Iscom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Transcard, LLC f/k/a Innovative Processing Solutions, LLC (``Innovative Processing'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Innovative Processing for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Innovative Processing's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Innovative Processing have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GlobalPhone Corp. (``GlobalPhone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GlobalPhone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalPhone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GlobalPhone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GeoNet Communications Group, Inc. (``GeoNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GeoNet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GeoNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GeoNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Gateway Wireless Services, L.C. (``Gateway Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Gateway Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Gateway Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Gateway Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and First Communications, Inc. (``First Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against First Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding First Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and First Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ezequiel Guido d/b/a E Marketing (``Ezequiel Guido'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ezequiel Guido for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ezequiel Guido's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ezequiel Guido have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Circle Telephone Company (``Circle Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Circle Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Circle Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Circle Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Carolina Mobile Communications, Ltd. (``Carolina'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Carolina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carolina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Carolina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Allcom Communications, Inc. (``Allcom Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Allcom Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Allcom Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Allcom Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.pdf
  • New Talk, Inc. (formerly known as Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get a Phone) (collectively ``New Talk''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Talk for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding New Talk's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Talk have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and World Communications, Inc. (``World Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against World Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and World Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Global Connect Telecommunications, Inc. (``Global Connect'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Global Connect for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Connect's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Global Connect have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Courtesy Communications, Inc. (``Courtesy Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Courtesy Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Courtesy Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Courtesy Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and VIP Communications, Inc. (``VIP Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against VIP Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding VIP Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and VIP Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Telnet, Inc. (``International Telnet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Telnet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Telnet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Telnet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Range Corporation d/b/a Range Telecommunications (``Range Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Range Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Range Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Range Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Madera Radio Dispatch, Inc. (``Madera Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Madera Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Madera Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Madera Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Suncoast Technology, Inc. (``Suncoast'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Suncoast Technology, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Suncoast's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Suncoast have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tri-Caps, Inc. (``Tri-Caps'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tri-Caps for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-Caps' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tri-Caps have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TTI Comm Corp. (``TTI Comm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TTI Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TTI Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TTI Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications (``Audio-Video''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Audio-Video for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Audio-Video's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Audio-Video have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Teton Communications, Inc. (``Teton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Teton for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Teton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma (``Mobile Phone of Oklahoma'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobile Phone of Oklahoma for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Phone of Oklahoma's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Chapin Long Distance, Inc. (``Chapin Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Chapin Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Chapin Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Chapin Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lunex Telecom, Inc. (``Lunex Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lunex Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lunex Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lunex Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.pdf
  • ``Commission'') and Maverick Media of Eau Claire Communications, LLC d/b/a Page Call Communications (``Maverick Media'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Maverick Media for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Maverick Media's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Maverick Media have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and McBlue Telecom, Inc. (``McBlue'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against McBlue for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding McBlue's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and McBlue have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Metro Beeper, Inc. (``Metro Beeper'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Metro Beeper for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metro Beeper's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Metro Beeper have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Milbank Communications, Inc. (``Milbank Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Milbank Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Milbank Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Milbank Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.pdf
  • or ``Commission'') and Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc. (``Cordova'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cordova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cordova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Argentina USA, Inc. (``Telecom Argentina'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telecom Argentina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telecom Argentina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telecom Argentina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and The Beeper People, Inc. d/b/a AirPage (``Beeper People'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Beeper People for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Beeper People's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Beeper People have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Texapage N.E., Inc. (``Texapage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Texapage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Texapage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Texapage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Valley Communications of Moses Lake, Inc. d/b/a Tele-Waves (``Valley Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Valley Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Valley Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Valley Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and World Communication Center, Inc. (``World Communication Center'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against World Communication Center for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communication Center's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and World Communication Center have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tim Ron Enterprises, LLC (``Tim Ron Enterprises'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tim Ron Enterprises for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tim Ron Enterprises' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tim Ron Enterprises have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.pdf
  • ``Commission'') and Radio Communications of Charleston, Inc. d/b/a FirstPage (``Radio Communications of Charleston'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Radio Communications of Charleston for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Radio Communications of Charleston's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Radio Communications of Charleston have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Wireless Telecommunications Corp. f/k/a Westar Communications, Inc. (``Westar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Leflore Communications, Inc. (``Leflore'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Leflore Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Leflore's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Leflore have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.pdf
  • X5 Solutions, X5 SLC, LLC d/b/a X5 Solutions, and X5 Solutions, Inc. (collectively, ``X5 Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against X5 Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X5 Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and X5 Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Premiere Communications Systems, Inc. (``Premiere Communications Systems'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Premiere Communications Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Premiere Communications Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Premiere Communications Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lectronics, Inc. (``Lectronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lectronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lectronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lectronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hello Pager Company, Inc. d/b/a Hello, Inc. (``Hello Pager'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Hello Pager for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hello Pager's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Hello Pager have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and RCC, Inc. d/b/a Radio-Comm Co. (``RCC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RCC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Globaltel LD, Inc. d/b/a American Roaming Network (``ARN'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ARN for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ARN's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ARN have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LaVergne's TeleMessaging, Inc. (``LaVergne's'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LaVergne's for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LaVergne's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LaVergne's have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless (``Keystone Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Keystone Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Keystone Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Keystone Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd Mobile''). On March 26, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Amp'd Mobile for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Amp'd Mobile was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Amp'd Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (``Oneida''). On March 29, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Oneida for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Oneida was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.pdf
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (``CTI''). On August 10, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to CTI for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.pdf
  • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless (``Key''). On March 28, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Key for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Key was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Mechanicsville Telephone Company (``Mechanicsville Telephone''). On July 19, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Mechanicsville Telephone for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mechanicsville Telephone was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telephone Answering Service, Inc. (``Telephone Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telephone Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telephone Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telephone Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Alaska Telecom, Inc. (``Alaska Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alaska Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alaska Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Alaska Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ATL Communications d/b/a Sunriver Telecom (``ATL Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ATL Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ATL Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ATL Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CSM Wireless, Inc. (``CSM Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CSM Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CSM Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CSM Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CTI Long Distance (``CTI Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CTI Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CTI Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CTI Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability (``NALs'') released in February, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In February, 2009, the Bureau issued to each of these companies a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture based on their apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to file a compliant CPNI certification with the Bureau. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by these
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation (``Easterbrooke Cellular''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Easterbrooke Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Easterbrooke Cellular's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Easterbrooke Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComTech21, LLC (``ComTech21'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComTech21 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech21's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComTech21 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North Bell Communications Corp. (``North Bell Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North Bell Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Bell Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and North Bell Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Go Solo Technologies (``Go Solo Technologies'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Go Solo Technologies for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go Solo Technologies' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Go Solo Technologies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CloseCall America, Inc. (``CloseCall'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CloseCall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CloseCall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CloseCall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and KK Communications, L.P. d/b/a Autophone of Laredo, LTD (``KK Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KK Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KK Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KK Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Midwestern Telecommunications, Inc. (``Midwestern'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Midwestern for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwestern's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Midwestern have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Com-Nav, Inc. d/b/a Radio Telephone of Maine (``Com-Nav'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Com-Nav for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Com-Nav's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Com-Nav have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cook Telecom, Inc. (``Cook Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cook Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cook Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cook Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and 01 Communications, Inc. (``01 Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against [Company name] for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 01 Communication's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and 01 Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Manchester-Hartland Telephone Co. (``Manchester-Hartland'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Manchester-Hartland for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Manchester-Hartland's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Manchester-Hartland have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Midwest Management, Inc. -- Consolidated (``Midwest Management'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Midwest Management for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwest Management's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Midwest Management have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ProPage, Inc. (``ProPage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ProPage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ProPage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ProPage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Standard Electronics West, Inc. d/b/a ALLPAGE (``Standard Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Standard Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Standard Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Standard Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and X2 Comm, Inc. d/b/a DC Communications (``X2 Comm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against X2 Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X2 Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and X2 Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nova Cellular West, Inc. d/b/a San Diego Wireless (``Nova Cellular'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nova Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nova Cellular's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nova Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Pete's Communications, Inc. (``Pete's Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pete's Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pete's Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pete's Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Omnicom Paging Plus, LLC (``Omnicom Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Omnicom Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Omnicom Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Omnicom Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North Sight Communications, Inc. (``North Sight Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North Sight Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Sight Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and North Sight Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Go2tel.com, Inc. (``Go2tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Go2tel.com, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go2tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Go2tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and FullTel, Inc. (``FullTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against FullTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FullTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and FullTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tel Tec, Inc. (``Tel Tec'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tel Tec for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tel Tec's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tel Tec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tularosa Communications, Inc. (``Tularosa'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tularosa Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tularosa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tularosa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC (``LTS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LTS's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC (``Magellan'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Magellan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Magellan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and American Page Network (``American Page Network'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against American Page Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding American Page Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and American Page Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ruddata Corporation d/b/a VCI Internet Service (``Ruddata'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ruddata for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ruddata's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ruddata have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele-Beep Paging Co. (``Tele-Beep Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele-Beep Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele-Beep Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele-Beep Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TRI-M Communications, Inc. (``TRI-M Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TRI-M Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TRI-M Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TRI-M Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mountain Paging Network, Inc. (``Mountain Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mountain Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mountain Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dixie-Net Communications (``Dixie-Net'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dixie-Net for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dixie-Net's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dixie-Net have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Litecall, Inc. (``Litecall'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Litecall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Litecall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Litecall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BendTel d/b/a Bend Data Center (``BendTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BendTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BendTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BendTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Biddeford Internet Corporation d/b/a Great Works Internet (``Biddeford'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Biddeford for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Biddeford's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Biddeford have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TelNet Worldwide, Inc. (``TelNet Worldwide'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TelNet Worldwide for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelNet Worldwide's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TelNet Worldwide have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Web Fire Communications, Inc. (``Web Fire'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Web Fire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Web Fire's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Web Fire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.pdf
  • and Sagir, Inc. d/b/a Indigo Wireless and Americell PA3, LP d/b/a Indigo Wireless (``Indigo Wireless'' or ``Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Indigo Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Indigo Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Indigo Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Raycom Electronics, Inc. (``Raycom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Raycom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Raycom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Raycom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.pdf
  • ``Commission'') and T/A Apartment Services, Inc. d/b/a Off Campus Telecommunications, Inc. (``T/A Apartment Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against T/A Apartment Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding T/A Apartment Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and T/A Apartment Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Shorelink Communications Corp. (``Shorelink'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Shorelink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Shorelink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Shorelink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services (``General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and St. Olaf College (``St. Olaf'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against St. Olaf for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding St. Olaf's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and St. Olaf have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Outfitter Satellite, Inc. (``Outfitter Satellite'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Outfitter Satellite for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Outfitter Satellite's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Outfitter Satellite have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and A.M.S. Voicecom, Inc. (``A.M.S. Voicecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against A.M.S. Voicecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A.M.S. Voicecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and A.M.S. Voicecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Sumrada Communications Service, Inc. (``Sumrada'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Sumrada for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Sumrada's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Sumrada have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Huntleigh Telecommunications Group, Inc. (``Huntleigh Telecommunications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Huntleigh Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huntleigh Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Huntleigh Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Corporate Networking, Inc., (``Advanced'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Corporate Networking for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Answerphone Services, Inc. d/b/a Direct Page Communications (``Answerphone Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Answerphone Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answerphone Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Answerphone Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Utility Telephone, Inc. and Anew Telecommunications d/b/a Call America (jointly, ``Utility'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Utility for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Utility's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Utility have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.pdf
  • Inc. d/b/a Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. and Reserve Long Distance Company, Inc. (jointly, ``Reserve Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Reserve Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reserve Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Reserve Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.pdf
  • Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company (``Bluegrass'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bluegrass's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bluegrass have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and 3U Telecom, Inc. (``3U Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against 3U Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 3U Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and 3U Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobilephone of Humboldt, Inc. (``Mobilephone of Humboldt'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobilephone of Humboldt for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilephone of Humboldt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobilephone of Humboldt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ImOn Communications, LLC (``ImOn'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ImOn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ImOn's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ImOn have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Professional Answering Service, Inc. (``Professional Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Professional Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Professional Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Professional Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and User Centric Communications, Inc. (``User Centric'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against User Centric for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding User Centric's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and User Centric have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Custom Tel, LLC (``Custom Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Custom Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Custom Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Custom Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Global Tech Telecommunications, Inc. (``Global Tech'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Global Tech for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Tech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Global Tech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and HUB Communications, Inc. (``HUB Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against HUB Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding HUB Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and HUB Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mountain Communications and Electronics, Inc. (``Mountain Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mountain Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mountain Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telegration, Inc. (``Telegration'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telegration for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telegration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telegration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.pdf
  • adopting the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification, and formally terminating the above-captioned Investigations. ``Parties'' means AT&T and the Bureau, each of which is a ``Party.'' ``Rules'' means those rules and regulations codified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. III. BACKGROUND Investigation EB-09-TC-382 3. On June 1, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, AT&T filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') opt-out mechanism. According to AT&T, the CPNI toll-free number used by small business customers to opt-out was mistakenly disconnected. AT&T reported that when small business customers called the toll-free number during business hours, they were automatically routed to a call
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Parker FiberNet, LLC (``Parker FiberNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Parker FiberNet, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Parker FiberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Parker FiberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CP Telecom Inc. f/k/a ComputerPro, Inc. (``ComputerPro'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComputerPro for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComputerPro's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComputerPro have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Unitycomm, LLC d/b/a U4Com (``Unitycomm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Unitycomm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Unitycomm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Unitycomm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.pdf
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and A & W Communications, Inc. (``A & W Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against A & W Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A & W Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and A & W Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Kelley's Tele-Communications, Inc. (``Kelley's Tele-Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Kelley's Tele-Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kelley's Tele-Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Kelley's Tele-Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobilpage, Inc. (``Mobilpage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobilpage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilpage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobilpage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Paxx Telecom, LLC (``Paxx Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Paxx Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Paxx Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Paxx Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dunnell Tel. Co. (``Dunnell'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dunnell for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dunnell's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dunnell have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and New Start Communication Corp. (``New Start'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Start for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Start's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Start have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.pdf
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). BACKGROUND Section
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.pdf
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). BACKGROUND Section
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.pdf
  • North American Numbering Plan (``NANP'') and Local Number Portability (``LNP'') administration; and the submission of information as set forth on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q). The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSpan for possible violations of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSpan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. The Bureau and ComSpan have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. (``HBC''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against HBC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding HBC's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and HBC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. (``Shoreham''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Shoreham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Shoreham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.pdf
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Voip Alliance, LLC (``Voip Alliance''). Voip Alliance has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Voip Alliance is a prepaid calling card provider located in McAllen, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Voip Alliance is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Touch-Tel USA, LLC (``Touch-Tel USA''). Touch-Tel USA has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Touch-Tel USA is a prepaid calling card provider located in Houston, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Touch-Tel USA is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Phone Club Corporation (``Phone Club''). Phone Club has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Phone Club is a reseller of local and long distance telecommunications services located in Miami, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Phone Club is subject to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.pdf
  • the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina (``Nu Era Telecom''). Nu Era Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Nu Era Telecom is an interexchange telecommunications carrier located in Miami Beach, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Nu Era Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. (``DigitGlobal Communications''). DigitGlobal Communications has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. DigitGlobal Communications is a telecommunications carrier located in Kew Gardens, New York. As a telecommunications carrier, DigitGlobal Communications is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.pdf
  • 9, 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com (``Straightel''). Straightel has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Straightel is a Voice over Internet Protocol (``VoIP'') and prepaid calling card carrier located in Miramar, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Straightel is subject to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Communications, Inc. (``Southwest Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Southwest Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LGT - Latin Global Telecom, LLC (``LGT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LGT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LGT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LGT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.pdf
  • Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely and/or compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CCI Network Services, LLC (``CCI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Public Service Communications, Inc. (``Public Service Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Public Service Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Public Service Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Public Service Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Toly Digital Network, Inc. (``Toly Digital'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Toly Digital for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toly Digital's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Toly Digital have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Business Integration Network (``Advance Business Integration'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Business Integration Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Business Integration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced Business Integration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Call-O-Call, Inc. (``Call-O-Call'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Call-O-Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call-O-Call's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Call-O-Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and AccessCom, Inc. (``AccessCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against AccessCom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AccessCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and AccessCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.pdf
  • follows upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Dezco Communications, Inc. (``Dezco Communications''). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Dezco Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Dezco Communications was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.pdf
  • Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Galaxy Internet Services, Inc.. (``Galaxy Internet Services''). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Galaxy Internet Services apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Galaxy Internet Services was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and New Bridge Technologies, Inc. (``New Bridge'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Bridge for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Bridge's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Bridge have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ValuTel Communications, Inc. (``ValuTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ValuTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ValuTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ValuTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Saving Call, LLC (``Saving Call'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Saving Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Saving Call's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Saving Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telebeep, Inc. (``Telebeep'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telebeep for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telebeep's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telebeep have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Accutel of Texas, LP (``Accutel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Accutel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Accutel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Accutel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Revolution Communications Company, LTD (``Revolution Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Revolution Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Revolution Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Revolution Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Crossfire Telecommunications, LLC (``Crossfire'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Crossfire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Crossfire's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Crossfire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.pdf
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Multi Voice, Inc. (``Multi Voice'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Multi Voice for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Multi Voice's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Multi Voice have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NTS Services Corp. (``NTS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NTS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NTS's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lyca Tel, LLC (``Lyca Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lyca Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lyca Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lyca Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.pdf
  • for Forfeiture of February 18, 2008, we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Blue Casa Communications, Inc. d/b/a Blue Casa Communications, LLC (Blue Casa or Company). In the Omnibus NAL, we found Blue Casa apparently liable for a forfeiture for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we found
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.pdf
  • upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc. (Intercel or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Intercel apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Intercel was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.pdf
  • a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 28, 2011 by Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot (``Think 12''). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for Think 12's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. Background Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois that resells interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of section 222 of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clon Communications, LLC (``Clon'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clon for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Royal Phone Company, LLC (``Royal Phone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Royal Phone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Royal Phone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Royal Phone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.pdf
  • Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. (Unitec or Company). In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or the Communications Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.pdf
  • Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Franz, Inc. d/b/a Telelight, Inc. (``Franz'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Franz for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Franz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Franz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CyberNet Communications, Inc. (``CyberNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CyberNet Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CyberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CyberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Davidson Telecom, LLC (``Davidson'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Davidson Telecom, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Davidson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Davidson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Central Communications Service Co. (``Central Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Central Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Central Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Central Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Access, Inc. (``International Access'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $29,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2008 and 2009. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine North, Inc. (``NationsLine North'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine North for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine North's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine North have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine Delaware, Inc. (``NationsLine Delaware'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine Delaware for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Delaware's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine Delaware have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Atlantic Telecom, Inc. (``Atlantic Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Atlantic Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Atlantic Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Atlantic Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine District of Columbia, Inc. (``NationsLine DC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine DC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine DC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine DC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine Virginia, Inc. (``NationsLine Virginia'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine Virginia for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Virginia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine Virginia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine, Inc. (``NationsLine'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.pdf
  • and Advantage Wireless Communications, Inc. d/b/a Almar Communications and Blackhawk Communications (``Advantage Wireless Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advantage Wireless Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advantage Wireless Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advantage Wireless Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Delta Telecom, Inc. (``Delta Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Delta Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Delta Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Delta Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Coast International, Inc. (``Coast International'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Coast International for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Coast International's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Coast International have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cyber Mesa Computer Systems, Inc. (``Cyber Mesa'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cyber Mesa for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cyber Mesa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cyber Mesa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. (``DNA'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DNA's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DNA have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Simplink Corporation (``Simplink'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Simplink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Simplink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Simplink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NET/COMM Services, Corp. (``NET/COMM Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NET/COMM Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NET/COMM Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NET/COMM Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. (``TelePlus'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelePlus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TelePlus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Pacific Telecom Services, Inc. (``Pacific Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pacific Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pacific Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pacific Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PR Wireless, Inc. d/b/a OPEN Mobile (``PR Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PR Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PR Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PR Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PiperTel Communications, LLC (``PiperTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PiperTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PiperTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PiperTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Network Services Solutions, LLC (``Network Services Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Network Services Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Network Services Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Network Services Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Internet & Telephone, LLC (``Internet & Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Internet & Telephone, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Internet & Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Internet & Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NetSpan Corporation d/b/a Foremost Telecommunications (``NetSpan Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NetSpan Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NetSpan Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NetSpan Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and China Unicom (Americas) Operations Ltd. Corporation (``China Unicom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against China Unicom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding China Unicom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and China Unicom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.pdf
  • Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot (``Think 12'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois providing resold interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North County Communications Corp. (``NCCC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North County Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NCCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.pdf
  • Appendix I FRN: See Appendix I OMNIBUS NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: February 25, 2011 Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I (``the Companies''), have apparently willfully and repeatedly violated (1) section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') rules by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, and (2) an Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') order by failing to provide certain information regarding their CPNI filings. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding both apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Association Administrators, Inc. (``Association Administrators'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Association Administrators for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Association Administrators' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Association Administrators have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ring Connection, Inc. (``Ring Connection'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ring Connection for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ring Connection's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ring Connection have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Consultants, Inc. (``TCI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.pdf
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nationwide Telecom, Inc. (``Nationwide Telecom'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Nationwide Telecom is a telecommunications carrier located in West Hills, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Nationwide Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.pdf
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Calmtel USA, Inc. (``Calmtel USA'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Calmtel USA is a telecommunications carrier located in Los Angeles, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Calmtel USA is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.pdf
  • 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Diamond Phone Card, Inc. (``Diamond Phone'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Diamond Phone is a telecommunications carrier located in Elmhurst, New York providing prepaid phone card services. As a telecommunications carrier, Diamond Phone is subject to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.pdf
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against USA Teleport, Inc. (``USA Teleport'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. USA Teleport is a telecommunications carrier located in North Miami Beach, Florida providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USA Teleport is subject to the requirements
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Integrated Telemanagement Services, Inc. d/b/a OMNICOM (``Integrated Telemanagement'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Integrated Telemanagement for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Integrated Telemanagement's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Integrated Telemanagement have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele Circuit Network Corporation (``Tele Circuit'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele Circuit for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Circuit's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele Circuit have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westgate Communications, LLC d/b/a WeavTel (``Westgate Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westgate Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westgate Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westgate Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ZTG, Inc. (``ZTG'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ZTG for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ZTG's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ZTG have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.pdf
  • and United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One (``Call One'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call One's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Call One have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. (``Telestar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telestar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telestar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Latino Communications Corp. (``Latino Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Latino Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Latino Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Latino Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Team Electronics, Inc. (``Team Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Team Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Team Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Team Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Neutral Tandem, Inc. (``Neutral'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Neutral Tandem for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Neutral's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Neutral have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.pdf
  • the Commission's rules, we deny a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 8, 2011, by USA Teleport, Inc. (``USAT''). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for USTA's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; paragraphs 51 and 53 of the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. Background USAT is a telecommunications carrier, located in North Miami Beach, Florida, that provides interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USAT is subject to the requirements
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Metronet Telecom, Inc. (``Metronet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Metronet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metronet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Metronet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 6, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against 88 Telecom Corporation (``88 Telecom''). 88 Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 88 Telecom is a prepaid calling card telecommunications carrier located in San Francisco, California. As a telecommunications carrier, 88 Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.pdf
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.pdf
  • and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning various regulatory fee and reporting obligations as well as required contributions to the Universal Service Fund, the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, and the North American Numbering Plan and Local Number Portability administration. The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation by the Bureau into possible violations of Section 222 of the Act, Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order regarding BSCI's customer proprietary network information obligations. A copy of the Consent Decree negotiated by the Bureau and BSCI is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be served by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.pdf
  • between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Ztar Mobile, Inc. (Ztar). The Consent Decree resolves and terminates the Bureau's investigations into Ztar's compliance with Section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning the deployment of digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets and with Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the EPIC CPNI Order, concerning the filing of an annual Customer Proprietary Network Information certification. The Bureau and Ztar have negotiated the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that DataFind.org may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 14, 2005, your counsel requested via email additional time, until December 23, 2005, to respond to the questions contained in the subpoena. To date, we have not received
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that LocateCell.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 16, 2005, your counsel provided a partial response to several of the questions contained in the subpoena and indicated that you would provide additional responses to other questions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.txt
  • Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that your company may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any response to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via hand-delivery. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Onlinepi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. You requested two extensions of time in which to respond, and we granted both requests, extending the response date to February 21, 2006. To date, we have not received any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1432A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via hand-delivery. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Usaskiptrace.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any responses to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Matecheckpi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any responses to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1641A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: August 17, 2006 Released: August 18, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau and Alltel Corporation (``Alltel''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against Alltel for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Enforcement Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be served by adopting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-220A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-058 NAL/Acct. No. 200632170002 FRN: 0012757787 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Alltel Corporation (``Alltel'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-221A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-059 NAL/Acct. No. 200632170003 FRN: 0004305124 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that AT&T Inc. (``AT&T'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-258A1.txt
  • about the safeguards employed by the companies handling their private information and contacted the Bureau seeking information about the CPNI compliance certifications. Opening a new docket will enable the public to more easily access these carrier certificates. Carrier compliance certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Any CPNI compliance certifications already filed electronically with the Commission will be moved to the new docket by Commission staff. Carriers do not need to re-file their certifications. Filing Procedures (ECFS), or (2) by filing paper copies. See Electronic
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-916A1.txt
  • 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, and in particular the serious consequences that may flow from inadequate concern for and protection of CPNI, we propose a monetary forfeiture of $100,000 against Cbeyond for its apparent failure to comply with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the CPNI Order. BACKGROUND Based on concerns regarding the apparent availability to third parties of sensitive, personal subscriber information the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') has been investigating the adequacy of procedures implemented by telecommunications carriers to ensure confidentiality of their subscribers' CPNI. For example, companies known as ``data brokers'' have advertised the availability of records
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4507 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170011 FRN: 0014731822 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd'' or ``Amp'd Mobile'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the subpart governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.txt
  • 0003772274 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that KLM Telephone Company, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively ``KLM''), apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he had personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.txt
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4261 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170035 FRN:0001544790 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation, (``Easterbrooke Cellular'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1410A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4745 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170032 FRN: 0005413463 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 28, 2007 Released: March 28, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless (``Key'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1411A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4497 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0042 FRN: 0006149223 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 28, 2007 Released: March 28, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. (``HBC'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.txt
  • Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4483 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0037 FRN: 0005013669 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that CTC Communications Corporation (``CTC'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4500 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0038 FRN 0004380200 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. (``Shoreham'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its CPNI compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules regarding the use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.txt
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4496 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170055 FRN: 0004272373 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-3411 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170023 FRN: 0004337218 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (``Oneida'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its annual certification explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1416A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4174 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170033 FRN: 0007415706 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 28, 2007 Released: March 28, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless (``Keystone Wireless '') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.txt
  • directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). On January 27, 2007, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Burke's Garden directing Burke's Garden to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Burke's Garden for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Burke's Garden filed a response to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4518 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0041 FRN: 0003748340 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Mechanicsville Telephone Company (``Mechanicsville Telephone'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an annual certificate signed by a corporate officer stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4111 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170017 FRN: 0003765740 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a/ A-1 Communications (``Audio-Video'' ) apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.txt
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry (``LOIs'') to several carriers, including Connect, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Connect did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to Connect for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On April 27, 2007, Connect submitted several documents in response to the NAL, including a letter from its President, Byron T. Young, which explains, among
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4731 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170054 FRN: 0013394028 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone (``Connect'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.txt
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry (``LOIs'') to several carriers, including PhoneCo, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. PhoneCo did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to PhoneCo for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On June 27, 2007, PhoneCo submitted a response to the NAL, which explains the Company's reasons for failing to respond to the LOI. PhoneCo states
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.txt
  • Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4006 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0076 FRN: 0003743119 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (``CTI'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-6030 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0009 FRN: 0007704166 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC (``River City Wireless'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.txt
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and AT&T Inc. (``AT&T''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') regarding AT&T Corp.'s compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a). The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.txt
  • Liberty Phones is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. BACKGROUND Liberty Phones, an Arkansas-based company authorized to provide local and interexchange telecommunications services since 2002, provides prepaid residential and small business telephone service. On February 6, 2006, Liberty Phones submitted to the Bureau a Certificate of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') filing pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Upon checking, Bureau staff learned there was no record of Liberty Phones registering with the Commission or submitting Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (FCC Form 499) to the Universal Service Administrative Company (``USAC''), or making associated payments to the requisite federal regulatory programs. On May 31, 2007, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (``LOI'') to Liberty Phones
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') adopts the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and Cbeyond Communications, Inc. (``Cbeyond''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against Cbeyond for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act'') and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Consent decree terminates an investigation into Cbeyond's compliance with section 64.2007(a)(3) of the Commission's rules regarding customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). The Bureau and Cbeyond have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Based on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-3543 NAL/Acct. No. 20083217 0003 FRN: 0004938064 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 29, 2007 Released: November 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. (``Dialaround'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1321A1.pdf
  • customer's CPNIobtained by a telecommunications carrier must remain in effect until the customer revokes or limits such approval or disapproval.[47 C.F.R. § 64.2007] ÿTraining and express disciplinary process in place oTelecommunications carriers must train their personnel as to when theyare and are not authorized to use CPNI, and carriers must have an express disciplinary process in place. [47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(b)] B. Notification Requirements ÿNotification to law enforcement of breach oA telecommunications carrier shall notifylaw enforcement of a breach of its customers' CPNI. The carrier shall not notifyits customers or disclose the breach publicly, whether voluntarilyor under state or local law or the Commission's rules, until it has completed the process of notifying law enforcement. oAs soon as practicable, and in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit | P DA 08-171 January 29, 2008 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (``CPNI Certifications'') pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed no later than March 1, 2008, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.txt
  • based on the caller's location. E911 also provides the call taker with the caller's call back number ... and in many cases, location information....'' Id. at 10251 ¶13 (footnotes omitted). See id. at 10246 n.2 (citing examples of VoIP customers futilely attempting to call 911 during emergency situations). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.20000 - 1.20008. See id. §§ 64.2001 - 64.2009. See id. §§ 64.601 - 64.608. See id. §§ 6.1 - 6.23 and §§ 7.1 - 7.23. See id. §§ 52.20 - 52.33 See id. § 54.706. See id. § 64.604. See id. § 52.17. See id. § 52.32. See id. § 64.1195. Id. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920 Federal Communications Commission DA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.txt
  • into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against CTC for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTC have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.txt
  • to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). On December 5, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Manning directing Manning to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Manning for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Manning filed responses to the NAL on May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.txt
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). 2. On December 12, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Habla directing Habla to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Habla for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. The NAL was sent by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Wilson Communication Company, Inc. (``Wilson'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Wilson for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Wilson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Wilson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and WTC Communications, Inc. (``WTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against WTC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and WTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clearcom, Inc. (``Clearcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clearcom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clearcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clearcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Supply, Inc. (``TSI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telecom Supply, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TSI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CenCom, Inc. (``CenCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CenCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CenCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CenCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComSouth Telenet, Inc. (``ComSouth'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSouth Telenet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170168 FRN: 0005013699 ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. (``@Communications'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On September 2, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to @Communications asking @Communications whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for the calendar
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.txt
  • No. 200932170102 FRN: 0004272373 ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 29, 2008, PriorityOne filed a certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules with the Commission's Secretary. In reviewing the certifications filed, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. (``ComSouth'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComTech Solutions, LLC (``ComTech'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComTech Solutions, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComTech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. (``Nebraska'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nebraska's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nebraska have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Stanton Long Distance, LLC (``Stanton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Stanton Long Distance, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Stanton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Stanton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC (``NLD'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NLD's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NLD have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ligtel Communications, Inc. (``Ligtel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ligtel Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ligtel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ligtel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Texas Long Distance Company (``Southwest'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Texas Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Southwest have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. (``TCB'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCB's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TCB have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and RTC Communications Corp. (``RTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RTC Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Smithville Telecom, Inc. (``Smithville'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Smithville Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Smithville's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Smithville have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ASTAC Long Distance (``ASTAC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ASTAC Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ASTAC Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ASTAC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. (``Family Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Family Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Family Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.txt
  • 200932170299 FRN: 0002381873 ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 6, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville (``Naperville'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Naperville a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.txt
  • FRN: 0018509778 ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 5, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. (``Sweetser'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Sweetser a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clay County Communications, LLC (``Clay County'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clay County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clay County's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clay County have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. (``Giles-Craig'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Giles-Craig's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Giles-Craig have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.txt
  • 200932170783 FRN: 0005024641 ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. (``TCO Network'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On September 5, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to TCO Network asking TCO Network whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. (``Hinton'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Hinton a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.txt
  • No. 200932170825 FRN: 0010103497 ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.txt
  • No. 200932170086 FRN: 0005075403 ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. (``Momentum'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Momentum a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Evertek, Inc. (``Evertek'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Evertek, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Evertek's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Evertek have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Topsham Communications, LLC (``Topsham'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Topsham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Topsham's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Topsham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications (``B & B Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B & B Communications Network, Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & B Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B & B Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GBT Communications, Inc. (``GBT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GBT Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GBT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GBT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. (``Cedar-Wapsie'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cedar-Wapsie's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cedar-Wapsie have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NMRSA6-III Partnership (``NMRSA6-III'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NMRSA6-III Partnership for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NMRSA6-III's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NMRSA6-III have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. (``SOTI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SOTI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and SOTI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Peetz Communications, LLC (``Peetz'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Peetz Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Peetz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Peetz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Northeast Competitive Access Provider (``NCAP'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Northeast Competitive Access Provider for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCAP's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NCAP have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Carr Communications, Inc. (``Carr'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Carr Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carr's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Carr have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. (``Ogden'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ogden's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ogden have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westphalia Communications, Inc. (``Westphalia'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westphalia Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westphalia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westphalia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and SpringCom, Inc. (``SpringCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against SpringCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SpringCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and SpringCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.txt
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and AT&T, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates (collectively ``AT&T'' or ``the AT&T Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Bureau against the AT&T Companies for possible violation of section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(3)(ii), 64.2008(d)(3)(v) and 64.2009(a) of the Federal Communication Commission's (``Commission'') rules relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and sections 201(b) and 254 of the Act, and sections 54.712(a), 69.131 and 69.158 of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. The Bureau and the AT&T Companies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fort Mojave Television, Inc. (``Fort Mojave'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fort Mojave Television, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fort Mojave's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fort Mojave have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and AP&T Wireless, Inc. (``AP&T'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against AP&T Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AP&T's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and AP&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Falcon1, Inc. (``Falcon1'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Falcon1 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Falcon1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Falcon1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TSC Communications, Inc. (``TSC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TSC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TSC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.txt
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad, Inc. (``Cellular Abroad''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Cellular Abroad a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Cellular Abroad's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Cellular Abroad, we agree with Cellular Abroad that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Cellular Abroad is not a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The City of Daytona Beach (``Daytona Beach''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Daytona Beach a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Daytona Beach's apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Daytona Beach, we agree with Daytona Beach that Daytona Beach was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due. Accordingly, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.txt
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC (``Nebraska Supercomm''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Nebraska Supercomm a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Nebraska Supercomm's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon new information provided by Nebraska Supercomm, we agree with Nebraska Supercomm that it did not have any telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.txt
  • Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. (``Pilgrim''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Pilgrim a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Pilgrim's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Pilgrim, we agree with Pilgrim that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. During the 2007 calendar year, Pilgrim was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.txt
  • Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. (``Visionary''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Visionary a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Visionary's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Visionary, we agree with Visionary that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Visionary is not a telecommunications carrier, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc (``Zicore''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Zicore a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Zicore's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Zicore, we agree with Zicore that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.txt
  • Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc (``Isan''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Isan a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Isan's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Isan, we agree with Isan that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC (``Plains''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Plains a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Plains' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Plains, we agree with Plains that it had timely filed its CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound (``Orange''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Orange a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Orange's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Orange, we agree with Orange that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007 was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. (``Freedom''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Freedom's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Freedom, we agree with Freedom that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007 was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.txt
  • this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company (``Allendale''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Allendale a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Allendale's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Allendale, we agree with Allendale that it had timely filed its annual CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not violate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.txt
  • In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated (``Worldwide Marketing''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Worldwide Marketing a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Worldwide Marketing's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Worldwide Marketing, we agree with Worldwide Marketing that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance (``Clarks''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Clarks a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Clarks' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Clarks, we agree with Clarks that it was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due because it ceased offering telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit € D T DA 09-240 February 13, 2009 Enforcement Bureau Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) again reminds all companies subject to its CPNI rules of their obligation to file their CPNI Certification no later than March 1, 2009. Certifications must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided below. Background. On April 2, 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.txt
  • 200932170027 FRN: 0017197344 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Big Telephone, Inc. (``Big Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Big Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.txt
  • XXXX NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. (``Ben Lomand Rural'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand Rural is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.txt
  • No. 200932170025 FRN: 0003729142 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ben Lomand Communications, LLC (``Ben Lomand'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170024 FRN: 0017992298 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Bellvoz Corp. (``Bellvoz'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bellvoz is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.txt
  • 200932170023 FRN: 0004056602 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Bee Line Cable (``Bee Line'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bee Line is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170022 FRN: 0003802204 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc.(``Atlantic'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Atlantic is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., (``American Fiber'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that American Fiber is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.txt
  • No. 200932170018 FRN: 0004914909 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Action Communications, Inc. (``Action'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Action is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.txt
  • 001380018 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that 800 Response Information Services LLC (``800 Response'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that 800 Response is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.txt
  • No. 200932170029 FRN: 0004319406 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. (``Buckeye'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Buckeye is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.txt
  • No. 200932170030 FRN: 0003723061 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Cherokee Telephone Company (``Cherokee'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cherokee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.txt
  • FRN: 0007408073 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that China Telecom (Americas) Corporation (``China Telecom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that China Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.txt
  • FRN: 0004375184 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom (``Communications Venture'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Communications Venture is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.txt
  • FRN: 0015250202 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications (``Aquis'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Aquis is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.txt
  • 200932170039 FRN: 0003742467 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Consolidated Telephone Company (``Consolidated Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Consolidated Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.txt
  • FRN: 0003736360 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Clear World Communications Corporation (``Clear World'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clear World is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.txt
  • No. 200932170042 FRN: 0011443066 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. (``D.G.A.'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that D.G.A. is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.txt
  • No. 200932170072 FRN: 0017399262 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Isan Telecom, Inc. (``Isan'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Isan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.txt
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC (``Tennessee'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Tennessee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging (``Kitchen Productions'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Kitchen Productions is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.txt
  • FRN: 0002323731 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. (``KanOkla Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that KanOkla Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170077 FRN: 0017294992 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Latino Telecom, Inc. (``Latino Telecom'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Latino Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.txt
  • No. 200932170130 FRN: 0006357826 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Threshold Communications, Inc. (``Threshold'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Threshold is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.txt
  • No. 200932170078 FRN: 0005413042 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Leflore Communications, Inc. (``Leflore'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Leflore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. (``Legacy Long Distance'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Legacy Long Distance is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.txt
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. (``M & L Enterprises'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that M & L Enterprises is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.txt
  • FRN: 0017410390 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC (``Liberty'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Liberty is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One (``Call One'') or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Call One is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.txt
  • 200932170082 FRN: 0017194317 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that McClure Telephone Company (``McClure Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that McClure Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.txt
  • 0003737137 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that VDL, Inc. d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers (``VDL'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that VDL is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.txt
  • 0016201642 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe (``Broadstripe'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Broadstripe is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170138 FRN: 0010827806 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Volunteer First Services, LLC (``Volunteer'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Volunteer is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.txt
  • No. 200932170085 FRN: 0007116403 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Commnet Wireless, LLC (``Commnet'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Commnet is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170086 FRN: 0005075403 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Momentum Telecom, Inc. (``Momentum'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Momentum is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.txt
  • FRN: 0017238452 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated (``Worldwide Marketing'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Worldwide Marketing is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.txt
  • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. (``Angel Communications'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Angel Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Data Radio Management Company, Inc. (``Data Radio Management'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Data Radio Management is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.txt
  • No. 200932170142 FRN: 0004921219 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find the Scott C. MacIntyre (``MacIntyre'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that MacIntyre is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.txt
  • 0002775765 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Edward Adams Associates, Inc. (``Edward Adams Associates'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Edward Adams Associates is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.txt
  • No. 200932170145 FRN: 0011476751 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Zicore Services, Inc. (``Zicore'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Zicore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170148 FRN: 0009809278 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that SI2Way, Inc. (``SI2Way'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SI2Way is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170149 FRN: 0002696300 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Wayne Frank (``Frank'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Frank is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.txt
  • No. 200932170152 FRN: 0005030630 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that James T. Hopper (``Hopper'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hopper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.txt
  • EB-09-TC-194 NAL/Acct. No. 200932170153 FRN: 0005027701 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Arthur N. Sherman (``Sherman'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sherman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.txt
  • FRN: 0001611110 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. (``Telebeeper'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telebeeper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.txt
  • 200932170155 FRN: 0003965514 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find That Clifford E. Bade (``Clifford Bade'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clifford Bade is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.txt
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company (``National Brands'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that National Brands is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170091 FRN: 0005043195 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Netcarrier Telecom, Inc.(``Netcarrier'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Netcarrier is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.txt
  • 200932170092 FRN: 0010737641 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Network Innovations, Inc. (``Network Innovations'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Network Innovations is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.txt
  • No. 200932170094 FRN: 0004311809 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Nunn Telephone Company (``Nunn'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Nunn is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.txt
  • 200932170095 FRN: 0005605688 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that O. Richard Knutson (``O.R. Knutson'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that O.R. Knutson is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.txt
  • No. 200932170096 FRN: 0017064544 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that One Touch India LLC (``One Touch'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that One Touch is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom(``Phillips County'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Phillips County is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.txt
  • FRN: 0009783093 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Prime Time Ventures (``Prime Time Ventures'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Prime Time Ventures is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.txt
  • No. 200932170102 FRN: 0004272373 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that PriorityOne is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.txt
  • No. 200932170103 FRN: 0002317725 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that ProCom LMR, Inc. (``ProCom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ProCom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.txt
  • No. 200932170104 FRN: 0005814157 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find the Protek Leasing Corp. (``Protek'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Protek is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.txt
  • No. 200932170044 FRN: 0010393882 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that DAR Communications Corporation (``DAR'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that DAR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.txt
  • FRN: 0003736188 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. (``Santa Rosa'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.txt
  • 0005063615 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (``Santa Rosa'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.txt
  • 200932170111 FRN: 0003758877 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. (``Santel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.txt
  • No. 200932170112 FRN: 0017217548 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Securetel Network Inc. (``Securetel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Securetel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.txt
  • 200932170114 FRN: 0014198253 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. (``Shreveport'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Shreveport is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-364A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No.200932170045 FRN: 0008694853 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Desktop Media, Inc. (``Desktop'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Desktop is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.txt
  • 200932170048 FRN: 0005093372 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Dixville Telephone Company (``Dixville Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Dixville Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.txt
  • 0017199878 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that E & F Telecom, Inc. (``E & F Telecom'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that E & F Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.txt
  • 0013321211 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, (``Eastern Colorado'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Eastern Colorado is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170052 FRN: 0004999223 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that EGIX, Inc. (``EGIX'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that EGIX is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.txt
  • 001776457 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that South Central Wireless, Inc, dba SCTelcom (``SCTelcom'') or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SCTelcom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.txt
  • 0018509752 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. (``Specialized Mobile Radio'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Specialized Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.txt
  • No. 200932170225 FRN: 0018509133 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that BKT Telecom Corp. (``BKT'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that BKT is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.txt
  • 0004330130 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies (``First Mile'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that First Mile is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.txt
  • No. 200932170057 FRN: 0003770773 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Gabriel Wireless, LLC (``Gabriel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Gabriel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.txt
  • FRN: 0009725748 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that T2 Communications, LLC (``T2 Communications'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that T2 Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170058 FRN: 0014872337 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ganoco, Inc. (``Ganoco'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ganoco is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.txt
  • No. EB-09-TC-164 NAL/Acct. No. 200932170123 FRN: 0014225684 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Telchin Corporation (``Telchin'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telchin is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that General Mobile Radio Service, Inc. (``General Mobile Radio'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that General Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-389A1.txt
  • 6519841125 FRN: 0011437746 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that GOES Telecom, Inc. (``GOES Telecom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that GOES Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.txt
  • 200932170064 FRN: 0004329348 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. (``Hartman'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hartman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.txt
  • No. 200932170066 FRN: 0011107539 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Highland Communications, LLC (``Highland'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Highland is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.txt
  • 200932170126 FRN: 0010635696 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC (``TeleSpan'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that TeleSpan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit l @ DA 09-9 January 7, 2009 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (CPNI Certifications) pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed annually between January 1 and March 1, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.txt
  • we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC (``Freedom Communications''). On February 26, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom Communications a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Freedom Communications' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Freedom Communications, we agree with Freedom Communications that it had submitted, by mail, a complete CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year; although several pages
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.txt
  • their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation regarding Verizon's compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1), and section 64.2007 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2007. II. BACKGROUND 2. On January 27, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, Verizon filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its opt-out mechanism for obtaining customers' approval for use of their customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). The notice stated that, on January 16, 2009, Verizon discovered that the total number of opt-out customers compiled by its vendor was greater than the number in its database by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BBG Communications, Inc. (``BBG Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BBG Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BBG Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BBG Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CMC Telecom, Inc. (``CMC Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CMC Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMC Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CMC Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and DialToneServices, L.P. (``DialToneServices'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against DialToneServices for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DialToneServices' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DialToneServices have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Faircall Corporation d/b/a 1-800 Faircall (``Faircall Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Faircall Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Faircall Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Faircall Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. (``GLC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GLC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GLC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.txt
  • or ``Commission'') and Impact Network Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Impact Long Distance (``Impact Network Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Impact Network Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Impact Network Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Impact Network Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Northwest Telephone, Inc. (``NWT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Northwest Telephone, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NWT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NWT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NovoLink Communications, Inc. (``NovoLink Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NovoLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NovoLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NovoLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1137A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and OLS, Inc. d/b/a Georgia On-Line Services (``OLS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against OLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding OLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and OLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Opcom, Inc. d/b/a WCS Telecom (``Opcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Opcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Opcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Opcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1139A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and OneLink Communications, Inc. (``OneLink Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against OneLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding OneLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and OneLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. (``Orlando'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Orlando's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Orlando have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Quasar Communications Corporation (``Quasar Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Quasar Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quasar Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Quasar Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele Uno, Inc. (``Tele Uno'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele Uno for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Uno's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele Uno have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1143A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TeleDias Communications, Inc. (``TeleDias'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TeleDias for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TeleDias' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TeleDias have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Arkadin, Inc. (``Arkadin'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Arkadin for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Arkadin's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Arkadin have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.txt
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clarksville Mutual Tel. Co. d/b/a Clarksville Mutual Telephone Company (``Clarksville Mutual'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clarksville Mutual for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clarksville Mutual's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clarksville Mutual have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.txt
  • E. Ritter Telephone Company, and Tri-County Tel. Co., Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Telephone Co., Inc. (collectively, ``Ritter'' or ``Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ritter for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ritter's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ritter have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lamar County Cellular, Inc. (``Lamar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lamar County Cellular, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lamar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lamar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Michigan Access, Inc. (``Michigan Access'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Michigan Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Michigan Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Michigan Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Reinbeck Municipal Telecommunications Utility (``Reinbeck Municipal'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Reinbeck Municipal for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reinbeck Municipal's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Reinbeck Municipal have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and US Telesis, Inc. (``US Telesis'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against US Telesis for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding US Telesis' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and US Telesis have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.txt
  • Released: October 5, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and Global Information Technologies (``GIT''). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bureau against GIT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (``Commission'') rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and, among other things, section 254 of the Act and section 54.712(a) of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. The Bureau and GIT have negotiated the terms of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BroadRiver Communication Corporation (``BroadRiver'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BroadRiver Communication Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BroadRiver's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BroadRiver have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and B W Telcom Long Distance (``B W Telcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B W Telcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B W Telcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B W Telcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Comteck of Indiana, Inc. (``Comteck of Indiana'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Comteck of Indiana for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Comteck of Indiana's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Comteck of Indiana have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. (``Communications 1'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications 1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Communications 1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. (``Craw-Kan'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Craw-Kan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Craw-Kan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and DTC Cable, Inc. (``DTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against DTC Cable, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and FiberComm, L.C. (``FiberComm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against FiberComm, L.C. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FiberComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and FiberComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Glenwood Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Glenwood Long Distance (``Glenwood'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Glenwood for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Glenwood's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Glenwood have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. (``Hamilton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc.'s apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Hamilton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Home Long Distance, Inc. (``Home Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Home Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Home Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Home Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the Omnibus NAL, each of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GlobalNova, Inc. (``GlobalNova'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GlobalNova for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalNova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GlobalNova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Horizon Technology (``Horizon'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Horizon Technology for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Horizon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Horizon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and KeyArt Communications, Inc. (``KeyArt'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KeyArt Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KeyArt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KeyArt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and MTC Communications, Inc. (``MTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against MTC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding MTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and MTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NNTC Wireless, LLC (``NNTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NNTC Wireless, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NNTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NNTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nunn Communications, LLC (``Nunn Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nunn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nunn Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nunn Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Phillips County Communications, LLC (``Phillips'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Phillips County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Phillips's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Phillips have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.txt
  • ``Commission'') and Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance (``Pioneer'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pioneer's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pioneer have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Roggen Telephone Enterprises, Inc. (``RTE'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RTE for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RTE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Prairie Networks, LLC (``Prairie Networks'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Prairie Networks, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Prairie Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Prairie Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company (``Toledo'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toledo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Toledo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.txt
  • & TV, Inc. (``Vernon Communications'' or ``Company''). Vernon Communications was formerly a subsidiary of Mutual Telephone Company. The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Vernon Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Vernon Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mutual Telephone Company, on behalf of Vernon Communications, have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and WUE, Inc. (``WUE'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against WUE, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WUE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and WUE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Andina Corporation (``Andina Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Andina Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Andina Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Andina Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Answer Fort Smith, Inc. (``Answer Fort Smith'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Answer Fort Smith for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answer Fort Smith's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Answer Fort Smith have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Korea Telecom America, Inc. (``Korea Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Korea Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Korea Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Korea Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CMOLS, LLC (``CMOLS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CMOLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMOLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CMOLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Sound of Tri-State (``Tri-State'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tri-State for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-State's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tri-State have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Bingo Consulting, LLC (``Bingo'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bingo for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bingo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bingo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Paging and Telemessaging, Inc. (``Advanced Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Airwaves Communications, Inc. (``Airwaves Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Airwaves Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Airwaves Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Airwaves Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Axxis Communications, Inc., (``Axxis Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Axxis Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Axxis Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Axxis Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dialaround Enterprises Inc. (``Dialaround''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dialaround for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Dialaround's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dialaround have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC (``River City Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against River City Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding River City Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and River City Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Western Communications Services, Inc. (``Western Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Western Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Western Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Western Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westside Paging, Inc. d/b/a Westside Communications (``Westside Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westside Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westside Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westside Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ray's Electronics, Inc. (``Ray's Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ray's Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ray's Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ray's Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Page Plus, Inc. (``Page Plus'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Page Plus for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Page Plus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Page Plus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobile Radio Communications, Inc. d/b/a MobilFone (``Mobile Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobile Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobile Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Huffman Communications (``Huffman'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Huffman for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huffman's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Huffman have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Kotana Communications, Inc. (``Kotana Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Kotana Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kotana Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Kotana Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1479A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Teleplex, Inc. d/b/a Alert Communications (``Teleplex'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Teleplex for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teleplex's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Teleplex have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Matthews Answering Service, Inc. (``Matthews Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Matthews Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Matthews Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Matthews Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lancaster Radio Paging, Inc. d/b/a Access Telecommunications Network (``Lancaster Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lancaster Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lancaster Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lancaster Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.txt
  • or ``Commission'') and UIDC Telecom Division d/b/a Rio Networks f/k/a Rio Communications, Inc. (``Rio Networks'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Rio Networks for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Rio Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Rio Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Satellite Services, Inc. (``International Satellite Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Satellite Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Satellite Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Satellite Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westel, Inc. (``Westel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and eKit.com, Inc. (``eKit.com'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against eKit.com for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding eKit.com's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and eKit.com have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CresComm Services, Inc. d/b/a Crescent Communications Co. (``CresComm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CresComm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CresComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CresComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Alpha Message Center, Inc. (``Alpha Message'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alpha Message for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alpha Message's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Alpha Message have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clark Communications, Inc. (``Clark Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clark Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clark Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clark Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Bryan 800 Communications, Inc. (``Bryan 800'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bryan 800 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bryan 800's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bryan 800 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cottonwood Holdings Corporation d/b/a Beep West Radio Paging (``Cottonwood Holdings'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cottonwood Holdings for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cottonwood Holdings' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cottonwood Holdings have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fones West Digital Systems, Inc. d/b/a Lynx Wireless (``Fones West'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fones West for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fones West's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fones West have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Janaslani Enterprises, LLC (``Janaslani'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Janaslani Enterprises, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Janaslani's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Janaslani have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fluent Inc. (``Fluent'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fluent for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fluent's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fluent have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.txt
  • or ``Commission'') and The Money Store, LP d/b/a The Money Box (``The Money Store'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against The Money Store for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Money Store's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and The Money Store have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and The Contact Network, Inc. d/b/a InLine (``The Contact Network'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against The Contact Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Contact Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and The Contact Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Total Communication Systems, Inc. (``Total Communication Systems'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Total Communication Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Total Communication Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Total Communication Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Basin Communications Systems, Inc. (``Basin Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Basin Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Basin Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Basin Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telstar Communications, Inc. (``Telstar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telstar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telstar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telstar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Terral Telephone Company, Inc. (``Terral Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Terral Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Terral Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Terral Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Signal Telecommunications, Inc. (``Signal Telecommunications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Signal Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Signal Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Signal Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.txt
  • Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively ``KLM''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KLM for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding KLM's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KLM have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ninetel, Inc. (``Ninetel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ninetel, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ninetel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ninetel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Oratel, Inc. (``Oratel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Oratel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Oratel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Oratel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ONS-Telecom, LLC (``ONS-Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ONS-Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ONS-Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ONS-Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.txt
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and David L. English d/b/a Mobile Communications Services (``David L. English'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against David L. English for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding David L. English's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and David L. English have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Communications Specialists, Inc. (``Communications Specialist'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Communications Specialist for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications Specialists' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Communications Specialists have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Flower City Paging, Inc. (``Flower City'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Flower City Paging, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Flower City's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Flower City have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and C & C Communications (``C & C'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against C & C for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding C & C's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and C & C have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.txt
  • B & C Mobile Communications, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Mobile (``B & C Mobile'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B & C Mobile for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & C Mobile's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B & C Mobile have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Relay Communications Corporation (``Relay Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Relay Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Relay Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Relay Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Critical Alert Systems, LLC, on behalf of Aroostook Paging, Inc. (``Aroostook'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Aroostook for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Aroostook's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Aroostook have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lloyd Hoff Holding Corporation d/b/a Black Bear Paging (``Lloyd Hoff'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lloyd Hoff for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lloyd Hoff's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lloyd Hoff have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lucky Communications, Inc. (``Lucky Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lucky Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lucky Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lucky Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Quick-Tel, Inc. (``Quick-Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Quick-Tel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quick-Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Quick-Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NexGen Integrated Communications, L.L.C. (``NexGen Integrated Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NexGen Integrated Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NexGen Integrated Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NexGen Integrated Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Iscom, Inc. (``Iscom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Iscom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Iscom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Iscom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Transcard, LLC f/k/a Innovative Processing Solutions, LLC (``Innovative Processing'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Innovative Processing for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Innovative Processing's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Innovative Processing have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GlobalPhone Corp. (``GlobalPhone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GlobalPhone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalPhone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GlobalPhone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GeoNet Communications Group, Inc. (``GeoNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GeoNet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GeoNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GeoNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Gateway Wireless Services, L.C. (``Gateway Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Gateway Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Gateway Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Gateway Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and First Communications, Inc. (``First Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against First Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding First Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and First Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ezequiel Guido d/b/a E Marketing (``Ezequiel Guido'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ezequiel Guido for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ezequiel Guido's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ezequiel Guido have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Circle Telephone Company (``Circle Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Circle Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Circle Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Circle Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Carolina Mobile Communications, Ltd. (``Carolina'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Carolina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carolina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Carolina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Allcom Communications, Inc. (``Allcom Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Allcom Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Allcom Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Allcom Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1593A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PriorityOne for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding PriorityOne's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PriorityOne have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.txt
  • New Talk, Inc. (formerly known as Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get a Phone) (collectively ``New Talk''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Talk for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding New Talk's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Talk have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and World Communications, Inc. (``World Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against World Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and World Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Global Connect Telecommunications, Inc. (``Global Connect'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Global Connect for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Connect's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Global Connect have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Courtesy Communications, Inc. (``Courtesy Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Courtesy Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Courtesy Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Courtesy Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and VIP Communications, Inc. (``VIP Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against VIP Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding VIP Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and VIP Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Telnet, Inc. (``International Telnet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Telnet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Telnet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Telnet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Range Corporation d/b/a Range Telecommunications (``Range Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Range Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Range Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Range Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Madera Radio Dispatch, Inc. (``Madera Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Madera Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Madera Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Madera Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Suncoast Technology, Inc. (``Suncoast'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Suncoast Technology, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Suncoast's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Suncoast have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tri-Caps, Inc. (``Tri-Caps'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tri-Caps for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-Caps' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tri-Caps have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TTI Comm Corp. (``TTI Comm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TTI Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TTI Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TTI Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications (``Audio-Video''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Audio-Video for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Audio-Video's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Audio-Video have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Teton Communications, Inc. (``Teton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Teton for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Teton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma (``Mobile Phone of Oklahoma'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobile Phone of Oklahoma for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Phone of Oklahoma's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Chapin Long Distance, Inc. (``Chapin Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Chapin Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Chapin Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Chapin Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lunex Telecom, Inc. (``Lunex Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lunex Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lunex Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lunex Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.txt
  • ``Commission'') and Maverick Media of Eau Claire Communications, LLC d/b/a Page Call Communications (``Maverick Media'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Maverick Media for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Maverick Media's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Maverick Media have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and McBlue Telecom, Inc. (``McBlue'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against McBlue for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding McBlue's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and McBlue have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Metro Beeper, Inc. (``Metro Beeper'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Metro Beeper for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metro Beeper's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Metro Beeper have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Milbank Communications, Inc. (``Milbank Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Milbank Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Milbank Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Milbank Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.txt
  • or ``Commission'') and Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc. (``Cordova'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cordova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cordova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Argentina USA, Inc. (``Telecom Argentina'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telecom Argentina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telecom Argentina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telecom Argentina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and The Beeper People, Inc. d/b/a AirPage (``Beeper People'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Beeper People for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Beeper People's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Beeper People have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Texapage N.E., Inc. (``Texapage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Texapage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Texapage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Texapage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Valley Communications of Moses Lake, Inc. d/b/a Tele-Waves (``Valley Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Valley Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Valley Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Valley Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and World Communication Center, Inc. (``World Communication Center'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against World Communication Center for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communication Center's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and World Communication Center have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tim Ron Enterprises, LLC (``Tim Ron Enterprises'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tim Ron Enterprises for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tim Ron Enterprises' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tim Ron Enterprises have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.txt
  • ``Commission'') and Radio Communications of Charleston, Inc. d/b/a FirstPage (``Radio Communications of Charleston'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Radio Communications of Charleston for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Radio Communications of Charleston's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Radio Communications of Charleston have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Wireless Telecommunications Corp. f/k/a Westar Communications, Inc. (``Westar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Leflore Communications, Inc. (``Leflore'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Leflore Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Leflore's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Leflore have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.txt
  • X5 Solutions, X5 SLC, LLC d/b/a X5 Solutions, and X5 Solutions, Inc. (collectively, ``X5 Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against X5 Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X5 Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and X5 Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Premiere Communications Systems, Inc. (``Premiere Communications Systems'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Premiere Communications Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Premiere Communications Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Premiere Communications Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lectronics, Inc. (``Lectronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lectronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lectronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lectronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hello Pager Company, Inc. d/b/a Hello, Inc. (``Hello Pager'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Hello Pager for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hello Pager's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Hello Pager have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and RCC, Inc. d/b/a Radio-Comm Co. (``RCC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RCC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Globaltel LD, Inc. d/b/a American Roaming Network (``ARN'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ARN for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ARN's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ARN have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LaVergne's TeleMessaging, Inc. (``LaVergne's'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LaVergne's for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LaVergne's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LaVergne's have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless (``Keystone Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Keystone Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Keystone Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Keystone Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.txt
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd Mobile''). On March 26, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Amp'd Mobile for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Amp'd Mobile was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Amp'd Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.txt
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (``Oneida''). On March 29, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Oneida for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Oneida was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.txt
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (``CTI''). On August 10, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to CTI for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless (``Key''). On March 28, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Key for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Key was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.txt
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Mechanicsville Telephone Company (``Mechanicsville Telephone''). On July 19, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Mechanicsville Telephone for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mechanicsville Telephone was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telephone Answering Service, Inc. (``Telephone Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telephone Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telephone Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telephone Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Alaska Telecom, Inc. (``Alaska Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alaska Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alaska Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Alaska Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ATL Communications d/b/a Sunriver Telecom (``ATL Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ATL Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ATL Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ATL Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CSM Wireless, Inc. (``CSM Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CSM Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CSM Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CSM Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CTI Long Distance (``CTI Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CTI Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CTI Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CTI Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability (``NALs'') released in February, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In February, 2009, the Bureau issued to each of these companies a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture based on their apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to file a compliant CPNI certification with the Bureau. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by these
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation (``Easterbrooke Cellular''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Easterbrooke Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Easterbrooke Cellular's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Easterbrooke Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComTech21, LLC (``ComTech21'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComTech21 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech21's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComTech21 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North Bell Communications Corp. (``North Bell Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North Bell Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Bell Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and North Bell Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Go Solo Technologies (``Go Solo Technologies'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Go Solo Technologies for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go Solo Technologies' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Go Solo Technologies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CloseCall America, Inc. (``CloseCall'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CloseCall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CloseCall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CloseCall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and KK Communications, L.P. d/b/a Autophone of Laredo, LTD (``KK Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KK Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KK Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KK Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Midwestern Telecommunications, Inc. (``Midwestern'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Midwestern for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwestern's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Midwestern have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Com-Nav, Inc. d/b/a Radio Telephone of Maine (``Com-Nav'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Com-Nav for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Com-Nav's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Com-Nav have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cook Telecom, Inc. (``Cook Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cook Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cook Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cook Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and 01 Communications, Inc. (``01 Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against [Company name] for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 01 Communication's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and 01 Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Manchester-Hartland Telephone Co. (``Manchester-Hartland'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Manchester-Hartland for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Manchester-Hartland's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Manchester-Hartland have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Midwest Management, Inc. -- Consolidated (``Midwest Management'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Midwest Management for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwest Management's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Midwest Management have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ProPage, Inc. (``ProPage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ProPage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ProPage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ProPage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Standard Electronics West, Inc. d/b/a ALLPAGE (``Standard Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Standard Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Standard Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Standard Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and X2 Comm, Inc. d/b/a DC Communications (``X2 Comm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against X2 Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X2 Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and X2 Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nova Cellular West, Inc. d/b/a San Diego Wireless (``Nova Cellular'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nova Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nova Cellular's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nova Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Pete's Communications, Inc. (``Pete's Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pete's Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pete's Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pete's Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Omnicom Paging Plus, LLC (``Omnicom Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Omnicom Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Omnicom Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Omnicom Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North Sight Communications, Inc. (``North Sight Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North Sight Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Sight Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and North Sight Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Go2tel.com, Inc. (``Go2tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Go2tel.com, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go2tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Go2tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and FullTel, Inc. (``FullTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against FullTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FullTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and FullTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tel Tec, Inc. (``Tel Tec'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tel Tec for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tel Tec's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tel Tec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tularosa Communications, Inc. (``Tularosa'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tularosa Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tularosa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tularosa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC (``LTS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LTS's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC (``Magellan'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Magellan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Magellan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and American Page Network (``American Page Network'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against American Page Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding American Page Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and American Page Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ruddata Corporation d/b/a VCI Internet Service (``Ruddata'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ruddata for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ruddata's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ruddata have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele-Beep Paging Co. (``Tele-Beep Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele-Beep Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele-Beep Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele-Beep Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TRI-M Communications, Inc. (``TRI-M Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TRI-M Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TRI-M Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TRI-M Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mountain Paging Network, Inc. (``Mountain Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mountain Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mountain Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dixie-Net Communications (``Dixie-Net'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dixie-Net for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dixie-Net's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dixie-Net have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Litecall, Inc. (``Litecall'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Litecall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Litecall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Litecall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BendTel d/b/a Bend Data Center (``BendTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BendTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BendTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BendTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Biddeford Internet Corporation d/b/a Great Works Internet (``Biddeford'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Biddeford for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Biddeford's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Biddeford have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TelNet Worldwide, Inc. (``TelNet Worldwide'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TelNet Worldwide for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelNet Worldwide's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TelNet Worldwide have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Web Fire Communications, Inc. (``Web Fire'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Web Fire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Web Fire's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Web Fire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.txt
  • and Sagir, Inc. d/b/a Indigo Wireless and Americell PA3, LP d/b/a Indigo Wireless (``Indigo Wireless'' or ``Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Indigo Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Indigo Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Indigo Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Raycom Electronics, Inc. (``Raycom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Raycom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Raycom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Raycom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.txt
  • ``Commission'') and T/A Apartment Services, Inc. d/b/a Off Campus Telecommunications, Inc. (``T/A Apartment Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against T/A Apartment Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding T/A Apartment Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and T/A Apartment Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Shorelink Communications Corp. (``Shorelink'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Shorelink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Shorelink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Shorelink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services (``General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and St. Olaf College (``St. Olaf'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against St. Olaf for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding St. Olaf's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and St. Olaf have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Outfitter Satellite, Inc. (``Outfitter Satellite'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Outfitter Satellite for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Outfitter Satellite's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Outfitter Satellite have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and A.M.S. Voicecom, Inc. (``A.M.S. Voicecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against A.M.S. Voicecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A.M.S. Voicecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and A.M.S. Voicecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Sumrada Communications Service, Inc. (``Sumrada'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Sumrada for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Sumrada's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Sumrada have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Huntleigh Telecommunications Group, Inc. (``Huntleigh Telecommunications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Huntleigh Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huntleigh Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Huntleigh Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2069A1.txt
  • LOI Response at 5. 47 C.F.R. § 9.5(b); VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10266 ¶ 37. VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10272 (quoting 911 Act § 3(b), 47 U.S.C. § 615). VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10272. Id. at n. 152. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.20000 - 1.20008. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2001 - 64.2009. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601 - 64.608. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.1 - 6.23 and 7.1 - 7.23. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.20 - 52.33 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 4.1 - 4.13. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.706. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604. See 47 C.F.R. § 52.17. See 47 C.F.R. § 52.32. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Corporate Networking, Inc., (``Advanced'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Corporate Networking for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Answerphone Services, Inc. d/b/a Direct Page Communications (``Answerphone Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Answerphone Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answerphone Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Answerphone Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Utility Telephone, Inc. and Anew Telecommunications d/b/a Call America (jointly, ``Utility'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Utility for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Utility's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Utility have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. and Reserve Long Distance Company, Inc. (jointly, ``Reserve Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Reserve Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reserve Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Reserve Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.txt
  • Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company (``Bluegrass'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bluegrass's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bluegrass have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and 3U Telecom, Inc. (``3U Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against 3U Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 3U Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and 3U Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobilephone of Humboldt, Inc. (``Mobilephone of Humboldt'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobilephone of Humboldt for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilephone of Humboldt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobilephone of Humboldt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ImOn Communications, LLC (``ImOn'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ImOn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ImOn's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ImOn have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Professional Answering Service, Inc. (``Professional Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Professional Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Professional Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Professional Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and User Centric Communications, Inc. (``User Centric'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against User Centric for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding User Centric's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and User Centric have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Custom Tel, LLC (``Custom Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Custom Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Custom Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Custom Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Global Tech Telecommunications, Inc. (``Global Tech'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Global Tech for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Tech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Global Tech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and HUB Communications, Inc. (``HUB Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against HUB Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding HUB Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and HUB Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mountain Communications and Electronics, Inc. (``Mountain Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mountain Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mountain Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telegration, Inc. (``Telegration'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telegration for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telegration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telegration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.txt
  • adopting the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification, and formally terminating the above-captioned Investigations. ``Parties'' means AT&T and the Bureau, each of which is a ``Party.'' ``Rules'' means those rules and regulations codified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. III. BACKGROUND Investigation EB-09-TC-382 3. On June 1, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, AT&T filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') opt-out mechanism. According to AT&T, the CPNI toll-free number used by small business customers to opt-out was mistakenly disconnected. AT&T reported that when small business customers called the toll-free number during business hours, they were automatically routed to a call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Parker FiberNet, LLC (``Parker FiberNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Parker FiberNet, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Parker FiberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Parker FiberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CP Telecom Inc. f/k/a ComputerPro, Inc. (``ComputerPro'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComputerPro for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComputerPro's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComputerPro have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Unitycomm, LLC d/b/a U4Com (``Unitycomm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Unitycomm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Unitycomm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Unitycomm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.txt
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and A & W Communications, Inc. (``A & W Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against A & W Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A & W Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and A & W Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Kelley's Tele-Communications, Inc. (``Kelley's Tele-Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Kelley's Tele-Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kelley's Tele-Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Kelley's Tele-Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobilpage, Inc. (``Mobilpage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobilpage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilpage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobilpage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Paxx Telecom, LLC (``Paxx Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Paxx Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Paxx Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Paxx Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dunnell Tel. Co. (``Dunnell'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dunnell for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dunnell's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dunnell have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and New Start Communication Corp. (``New Start'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Start for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Start's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Start have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.txt
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). BACKGROUND Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.txt
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). BACKGROUND Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.txt
  • North American Numbering Plan (``NANP'') and Local Number Portability (``LNP'') administration; and the submission of information as set forth on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q). The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSpan for possible violations of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSpan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. The Bureau and ComSpan have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. (``HBC''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against HBC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding HBC's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and HBC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. (``Shoreham''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Shoreham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Shoreham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.txt
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Voip Alliance, LLC (``Voip Alliance''). Voip Alliance has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Voip Alliance is a prepaid calling card provider located in McAllen, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Voip Alliance is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Touch-Tel USA, LLC (``Touch-Tel USA''). Touch-Tel USA has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Touch-Tel USA is a prepaid calling card provider located in Houston, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Touch-Tel USA is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Phone Club Corporation (``Phone Club''). Phone Club has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Phone Club is a reseller of local and long distance telecommunications services located in Miami, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Phone Club is subject to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.txt
  • the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina (``Nu Era Telecom''). Nu Era Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Nu Era Telecom is an interexchange telecommunications carrier located in Miami Beach, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Nu Era Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. (``DigitGlobal Communications''). DigitGlobal Communications has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. DigitGlobal Communications is a telecommunications carrier located in Kew Gardens, New York. As a telecommunications carrier, DigitGlobal Communications is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.txt
  • 9, 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com (``Straightel''). Straightel has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Straightel is a Voice over Internet Protocol (``VoIP'') and prepaid calling card carrier located in Miramar, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Straightel is subject to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Communications, Inc. (``Southwest Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Southwest Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LGT - Latin Global Telecom, LLC (``LGT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LGT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LGT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LGT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.txt
  • Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely and/or compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CCI Network Services, LLC (``CCI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Public Service Communications, Inc. (``Public Service Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Public Service Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Public Service Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Public Service Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Toly Digital Network, Inc. (``Toly Digital'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Toly Digital for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toly Digital's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Toly Digital have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Business Integration Network (``Advance Business Integration'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Business Integration Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Business Integration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced Business Integration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Call-O-Call, Inc. (``Call-O-Call'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Call-O-Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call-O-Call's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Call-O-Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and AccessCom, Inc. (``AccessCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against AccessCom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AccessCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and AccessCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.txt
  • follows upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Dezco Communications, Inc. (``Dezco Communications''). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Dezco Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Dezco Communications was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.txt
  • Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Galaxy Internet Services, Inc.. (``Galaxy Internet Services''). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Galaxy Internet Services apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Galaxy Internet Services was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and New Bridge Technologies, Inc. (``New Bridge'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Bridge for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Bridge's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Bridge have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ValuTel Communications, Inc. (``ValuTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ValuTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ValuTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ValuTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Saving Call, LLC (``Saving Call'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Saving Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Saving Call's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Saving Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telebeep, Inc. (``Telebeep'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telebeep for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telebeep's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telebeep have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Accutel of Texas, LP (``Accutel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Accutel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Accutel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Accutel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Revolution Communications Company, LTD (``Revolution Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Revolution Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Revolution Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Revolution Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Crossfire Telecommunications, LLC (``Crossfire'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Crossfire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Crossfire's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Crossfire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.txt
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Multi Voice, Inc. (``Multi Voice'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Multi Voice for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Multi Voice's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Multi Voice have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NTS Services Corp. (``NTS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NTS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NTS's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lyca Tel, LLC (``Lyca Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lyca Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lyca Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lyca Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.txt
  • for Forfeiture of February 18, 2008, we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Blue Casa Communications, Inc. d/b/a Blue Casa Communications, LLC (Blue Casa or Company). In the Omnibus NAL, we found Blue Casa apparently liable for a forfeiture for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we found
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.txt
  • upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc. (Intercel or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Intercel apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Intercel was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.txt
  • a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 28, 2011 by Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot (``Think 12''). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for Think 12's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. Background Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois that resells interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of section 222 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clon Communications, LLC (``Clon'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clon for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Royal Phone Company, LLC (``Royal Phone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Royal Phone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Royal Phone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Royal Phone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. (Unitec or Company). In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or the Communications Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.txt
  • Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Franz, Inc. d/b/a Telelight, Inc. (``Franz'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Franz for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Franz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Franz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CyberNet Communications, Inc. (``CyberNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CyberNet Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CyberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CyberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Davidson Telecom, LLC (``Davidson'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Davidson Telecom, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Davidson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Davidson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Central Communications Service Co. (``Central Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Central Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Central Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Central Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Access, Inc. (``International Access'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $29,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2008 and 2009. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine North, Inc. (``NationsLine North'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine North for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine North's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine North have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine Delaware, Inc. (``NationsLine Delaware'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine Delaware for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Delaware's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine Delaware have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Atlantic Telecom, Inc. (``Atlantic Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Atlantic Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Atlantic Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Atlantic Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine District of Columbia, Inc. (``NationsLine DC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine DC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine DC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine DC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine Virginia, Inc. (``NationsLine Virginia'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine Virginia for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Virginia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine Virginia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine, Inc. (``NationsLine'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.txt
  • and Advantage Wireless Communications, Inc. d/b/a Almar Communications and Blackhawk Communications (``Advantage Wireless Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advantage Wireless Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advantage Wireless Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advantage Wireless Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Delta Telecom, Inc. (``Delta Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Delta Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Delta Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Delta Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Coast International, Inc. (``Coast International'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Coast International for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Coast International's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Coast International have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cyber Mesa Computer Systems, Inc. (``Cyber Mesa'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cyber Mesa for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cyber Mesa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cyber Mesa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. (``DNA'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DNA's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DNA have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Simplink Corporation (``Simplink'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Simplink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Simplink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Simplink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NET/COMM Services, Corp. (``NET/COMM Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NET/COMM Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NET/COMM Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NET/COMM Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. (``TelePlus'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelePlus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TelePlus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Pacific Telecom Services, Inc. (``Pacific Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pacific Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pacific Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pacific Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PR Wireless, Inc. d/b/a OPEN Mobile (``PR Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PR Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PR Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PR Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PiperTel Communications, LLC (``PiperTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PiperTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PiperTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PiperTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Network Services Solutions, LLC (``Network Services Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Network Services Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Network Services Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Network Services Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Internet & Telephone, LLC (``Internet & Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Internet & Telephone, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Internet & Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Internet & Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NetSpan Corporation d/b/a Foremost Telecommunications (``NetSpan Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NetSpan Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NetSpan Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NetSpan Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and China Unicom (Americas) Operations Ltd. Corporation (``China Unicom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against China Unicom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding China Unicom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and China Unicom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.txt
  • Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot (``Think 12'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois providing resold interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North County Communications Corp. (``NCCC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North County Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NCCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.txt
  • Appendix I FRN: See Appendix I OMNIBUS NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: February 25, 2011 Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I (``the Companies''), have apparently willfully and repeatedly violated (1) section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') rules by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, and (2) an Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') order by failing to provide certain information regarding their CPNI filings. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding both apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Association Administrators, Inc. (``Association Administrators'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Association Administrators for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Association Administrators' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Association Administrators have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ring Connection, Inc. (``Ring Connection'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ring Connection for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ring Connection's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ring Connection have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Consultants, Inc. (``TCI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.txt
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nationwide Telecom, Inc. (``Nationwide Telecom'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Nationwide Telecom is a telecommunications carrier located in West Hills, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Nationwide Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.txt
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Calmtel USA, Inc. (``Calmtel USA'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Calmtel USA is a telecommunications carrier located in Los Angeles, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Calmtel USA is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.txt
  • 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Diamond Phone Card, Inc. (``Diamond Phone'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Diamond Phone is a telecommunications carrier located in Elmhurst, New York providing prepaid phone card services. As a telecommunications carrier, Diamond Phone is subject to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.txt
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against USA Teleport, Inc. (``USA Teleport'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. USA Teleport is a telecommunications carrier located in North Miami Beach, Florida providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USA Teleport is subject to the requirements
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Integrated Telemanagement Services, Inc. d/b/a OMNICOM (``Integrated Telemanagement'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Integrated Telemanagement for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Integrated Telemanagement's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Integrated Telemanagement have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele Circuit Network Corporation (``Tele Circuit'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele Circuit for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Circuit's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele Circuit have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westgate Communications, LLC d/b/a WeavTel (``Westgate Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westgate Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westgate Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westgate Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ZTG, Inc. (``ZTG'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ZTG for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ZTG's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ZTG have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.txt
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.txt
  • and United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One (``Call One'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call One's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Call One have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. (``Telestar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telestar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telestar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Latino Communications Corp. (``Latino Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Latino Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Latino Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Latino Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Team Electronics, Inc. (``Team Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Team Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Team Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Team Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Neutral Tandem, Inc. (``Neutral'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Neutral Tandem for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Neutral's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Neutral have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules, we deny a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 8, 2011, by USA Teleport, Inc. (``USAT''). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for USTA's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; paragraphs 51 and 53 of the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. Background USAT is a telecommunications carrier, located in North Miami Beach, Florida, that provides interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USAT is subject to the requirements
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Metronet Telecom, Inc. (``Metronet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Metronet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metronet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Metronet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 6, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against 88 Telecom Corporation (``88 Telecom''). 88 Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 88 Telecom is a prepaid calling card telecommunications carrier located in San Francisco, California. As a telecommunications carrier, 88 Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.txt
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.txt
  • and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning various regulatory fee and reporting obligations as well as required contributions to the Universal Service Fund, the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, and the North American Numbering Plan and Local Number Portability administration. The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation by the Bureau into possible violations of Section 222 of the Act, Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order regarding BSCI's customer proprietary network information obligations. A copy of the Consent Decree negotiated by the Bureau and BSCI is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be served by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.txt
  • between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Ztar Mobile, Inc. (Ztar). The Consent Decree resolves and terminates the Bureau's investigations into Ztar's compliance with Section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning the deployment of digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets and with Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the EPIC CPNI Order, concerning the filing of an annual Customer Proprietary Network Information certification. The Bureau and Ztar have negotiated the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.txt
  • appropriate notification of the carrier's request consistent with the requirements'' adopted by the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2003(h). Under the opt-out approval method ``a customer is deemed to have consented to the use, disclosure, or access to the customer's CPNI if the customer has failed to object thereto within the waiting period [adopted by the Commission in 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(d)(1)] after the customer is provided appropriate notification of the carrier's request for consent consistent with the rules'' adopted by the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2003(i). Such marketing is not limited to telemarketing and may include direct mail or other marketing. 2002 Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 17471-72, para. 19. The Commission noted that the carrier would still be able to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-100A1.txt
  • compliance with section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and sections 64.2001-2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2001-2009. The Consent Decree also terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against AT&T for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). The Commission and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation and the NAL. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-104A1.txt
  • the customer-carrier relationship. See 47 U.S.C. § 222; 47 C.F.R. § 64.2003(d). 47 U.S.C. § 222. This section provides that: ``Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunications carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.'' See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009 et seq., the Commission's rules implementing section 222 of the Act. . In specifications one through five of the subpoena, we directed LocateCell to provide corporate documents, including information concerning the relationship between 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. and LocateCell.com. We also requested information and documents relating to all websites owned by 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., and documents relating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-10A1.txt
  • a customer's CPNI approval can be clearly established. The Commission also requires telecommunications carriers to train their personnel as to when they are and are not authorized to use CPNI, and requires carriers to have an express disciplinary process in place. The Commission's safeguard rules also require carriers to maintain records that track access to customer CPNI records. Specifically, section 64.2009(c) of the Commission's rules requires carriers to ``maintain a record of all instances where CPNI was disclosed or provided to third parties, or where third parties were allowed access to CPNI,'' and to maintain such records for a period of at least one year. The Commission's safeguard rules also require the establishment of a supervisory review process for outbound marketing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.txt
  • a customer's CPNI approval can be clearly established. The Commission also requires telecommunications carriers to train their personnel as to when they are and are not authorized to use CPNI, and requires carriers to have an express disciplinary process in place. The Commission's safeguard rules also require carriers to maintain records that track access to customer CPNI records. Specifically, section 64.2009(c) of the Commission's rules requires carriers to ``maintain a record of all instances where CPNI was disclosed or provided to third parties, or where third parties were allowed access to CPNI,'' and to maintain such records for a period of at least one year. The Commission's safeguard rules also require the establishment of a supervisory review process for outbound marketing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-151A1.txt
  • is so because the customer is aware that its carrier has access to CPNI, and, through subscription to the carrier's service, has implicitly approved the carrier's use of CPNI within that existing relationship.'' Id. See id. (explaining ``total service approach'' to defining boundaries of customer's implied consent concerning use of CPNI). See id. at 8195, para. 193. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(a); see also CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8198, para. 198. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(b); see also CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8198, para. 198. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(c); see also CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8198-99, para. 199. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(d); see also CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8199, para. 200. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e);
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.txt
  • efforts); Verizon Comments at 15-16 (a narrative response from defendants detailing accessibility efforts would often be more appropriate). See 47 U.S.C § 618(a)(5)(C). Complainants may also request a copy of the public redacted version of a defendant's answer, as well as seek to obtain records filed by the defendant through a FOIA filing. CEA Comments at 46. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). TIA Comments at 28. See also CEA Comments at 46; CTIA Comments at 37-8.. See Letter from Matthew Gerst, Counsel, External & State Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG Docket No 10-213, (filed Sept. 26, 2011) (``CTIA Sept. 26 Ex Parte''). See CTIA Sept. 26 Ex Parte. CEA Comments at 45 (answer requirements ``implicitly assume'' that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-22A1.txt
  • reports, staff extrapolated from several years of outage reporting data regarding wireline service outages (which are functionally equivalent to outages of interconnected VoIP services) and estimates that up to 1,500 additional outage reports per year might be filed for the entire interconnected VoIP industry. Thus, 1,500 reports * $300/report equals $450,000 annual cost for outage reporting. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e); Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information; IP-Enabled Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket. No. 96-115, WC Docket. No. 04-36, 22 FCC Rcd 6927 ¶¶ 51-53, 54 (2007) (extending Customer Proprietary Network Information requirements to interconnected VoIP service providers and adopting annual
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-122A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission.1 The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that DataFind.org may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 14, 2005, your counsel requested via email additional time, until December 23, 2005, to respond to the questions contained in the subpoena. To date, we have not received any
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-124A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission.1 The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that LocateCell.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 16, 2005, your counsel provided a partial response to several of the questions contained in the subpoena and indicated that you would provide additional responses to other questions the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1430A1.html
  • Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that your company may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any response to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1431A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via hand-delivery. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Onlinepi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. You requested two extensions of time in which to respond, and we granted both requests, extending the response date to February 21, 2006. To date, we have not received any
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1433A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Matecheckpi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any responses to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1641A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: August 17, 2006 Released: August 18, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau and Alltel Corporation ("Alltel"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against Alltel for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Enforcement Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be served by adopting
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-220A1.html
  • Alltel Corporation ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-058 ) Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632170002 Forfeiture ) FRN: 0012757787 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1.In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Alltel Corporation (``Alltel'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules1 by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-221A1.html
  • AT&T Inc. ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-059 ) Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632170003 Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004305124 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1.In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that AT&T Inc. (``AT&T'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules1 by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-916A1.html
  • 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, and in particular the serious consequences that may flow from inadequate concern for and protection of CPNI, we propose a monetary forfeiture of $100,000 against Cbeyond for its apparent failure to comply with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the CPNI Order. II. BACKGROUND 2. Based on concerns regarding the apparent availability to third parties of sensitive, personal subscriber information the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") has been investigating the adequacy of procedures implemented by telecommunications carriers to ensure confidentiality of their subscribers' CPNI. For example, companies known as "data brokers" have advertised the availability
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-100A1.html
  • compliance with section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S 222, and sections 64.2001-2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 64.2001-2009. The Consent Decree also terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against AT&T for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009(e). 2. The Commission and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation and the NAL. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-104A1.html
  • the customer-carrier relationship. See 47 U.S.C. S 222; 47 C.F.R. S 64.2003(d). 47 U.S.C. S 222. This section provides that: "Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunications carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier." See also 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009 et seq., the Commission's rules implementing section 222 of the Act. According to a petition for rulemaking filed with the Commission regarding protection of CPNI, some data brokers have taken advantage of carriers' inadequate security standards to gain access to CPNI under false pretenses, such as by posing as the customer and then offering the records for sale on the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1407A1.html
  • Mobile, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170011 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0014731822 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd" or "Amp'd Mobile") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the subpart governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1408A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that KLM Telephone Company, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively "KLM"), apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he had personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1409A1.html
  • No. EB-06-TC-4261 Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170035 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN:0001544790 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation, ("Easterbrooke Cellular") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1412A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-4483 CTC Communications Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0037 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0005013669 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that CTC Communications Corporation ("CTC") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1413A1.html
  • Telephone Company, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0038 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN 0004380200 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. ("Shoreham") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its CPNI compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules regarding the use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1414A1.html
  • No. EB-06-TC-4496 PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170055 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004272373 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1415A1.html
  • Rural Telephone Co. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170023 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004337218 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. ("Oneida") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its annual certification explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1417A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1419A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1420A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1421A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1422A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1423A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2300A1.html
  • of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On January 27, 2007, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Burke's Garden directing Burke's Garden to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Burke's Garden for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Burke's Garden filed a response to the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3281A1.html
  • Mechanicsville Telephone Company ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0041 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003748340 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville Telephone") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an annual certificate signed by a corporate officer stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3291A1.html
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200732170017 d/b/a A-1 Communications ) FRN: 0003765740 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a/ A-1 Communications ("Audio-Video" ) apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3581A1.html
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry ("LOIs") to several carriers, including Connect, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Connect did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to Connect for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On April 27, 2007, Connect submitted several documents in response to the NAL, including a letter from its President, Byron T. Young, which explains, among
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3582A1.html
  • ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170054 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0013394028 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone ("Connect") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3583A1.html
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry ("LOIs") to several carriers, including PhoneCo, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. PhoneCo did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to PhoneCo for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On June 27, 2007, PhoneCo submitted a response to the NAL, which explains the Company's reasons for failing to respond to the LOI. PhoneCo states
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3584A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-4006 Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0076 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003743119 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ("CTI") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3734A1.html
  • NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0009 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0007704166 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC ("River City Wireless") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3812A1.html
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and AT&T Inc. ("AT&T"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") regarding AT&T Corp.'s compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222(c)(1), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a). 2. The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4016A1.html
  • is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. Liberty Phones, an Arkansas-based company authorized to provide local and interexchange telecommunications services since 2002, provides prepaid residential and small business telephone service. On February 6, 2006, Liberty Phones submitted to the Bureau a Certificate of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") filing pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Upon checking, Bureau staff learned there was no record of Liberty Phones registering with the Commission or submitting Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (FCC Form 499) to the Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC"), or making associated payments to the requisite federal regulatory programs. 3. On May 31, 2007, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Liberty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4090A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") adopts the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and Cbeyond Communications, Inc. ("Cbeyond"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against Cbeyond for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Act") and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Consent decree terminates an investigation into Cbeyond's compliance with section 64.2007(a)(3) of the Commission's rules regarding customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. The Bureau and Cbeyond have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. Based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4776A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-3543 Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20083217 0003 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004938064 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 29, 2007 Released: November 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ("Dialaround") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1920A1.html
  • based on the caller's location. E911 also provides the call taker with the caller's call back number ... and in many cases, location information...." Id. at 10251 P:13 (footnotes omitted). See id. at 10246 n.2 (citing examples of VoIP customers futilely attempting to call 911 during emergency situations). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.20000 - 1.20008. See id. S:S: 64.2001 - 64.2009. See id. S:S: 64.601 - 64.608. See id. S:S: 6.1 - 6.23 and S:S: 7.1 - 7.23. See id. S:S: 52.20 - 52.33 See id. S: 54.706. See id. S: 64.604. See id. S: 52.17. See id. S: 52.32. See id. S: 64.1195. Id. S:S: 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-404A1.html
  • into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission") and CTC Communications Corp. ("CTC"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against CTC for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTC have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-457A1.html
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On December 5, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Manning directing Manning to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Manning for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Manning filed responses to the NAL on May
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-458A1.html
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On December 12, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Habla directing Habla to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Habla for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. The NAL was sent by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1581A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Wilson Communication Company, Inc. ("Wilson" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Wilson for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Wilson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Wilson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1583A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and WTC Communications, Inc. ("WTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against WTC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and WTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1586A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clearcom, Inc. ("Clearcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clearcom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clearcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clearcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1587A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Supply, Inc. ("TSI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telecom Supply, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TSI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1590A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CenCom, Inc. ("CenCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CenCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CenCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CenCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1591A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComSouth Telenet, Inc. ("ComSouth" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSouth Telenet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1592A1.html
  • 0005013699 ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. ("@Communications") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On September 2, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to @Communications asking @Communications whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1593A1.html
  • ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 29, 2008, PriorityOne filed a certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules with the Commission's Secretary. In reviewing the certifications filed,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1599A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. ("ComSouth" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1600A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComTech Solutions, LLC ("ComTech" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComTech Solutions, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComTech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1601A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. ("Nebraska" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nebraska's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nebraska have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1602A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Stanton Long Distance, LLC ("Stanton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Stanton Long Distance, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Stanton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Stanton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1604A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC ("NLD" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NLD's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NLD have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1606A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ligtel Communications, Inc. ("Ligtel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ligtel Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ligtel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ligtel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1607A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Texas Long Distance Company ("Southwest" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Texas Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Southwest have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1609A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. ("TCB" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCB's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TCB have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1610A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and RTC Communications Corp. ("RTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RTC Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1611A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Smithville Telecom, Inc. ("Smithville" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Smithville Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Smithville's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Smithville have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1612A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ASTAC Long Distance ("ASTAC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ASTAC Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ASTAC Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ASTAC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1613A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. ("Family Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Family Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Family Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1614A1.html
  • ) ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 6, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville ("Naperville") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Naperville a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1615A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 5, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. ("Sweetser") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Sweetser a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1616A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clay County Communications, LLC ("Clay County" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clay County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clay County's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clay County have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1617A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. ("Giles-Craig" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Giles-Craig's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Giles-Craig have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1618A1.html
  • ) ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. ("TCO Network") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On September 5, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to TCO Network asking TCO Network whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1619A1.html
  • July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. ("Hinton") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Hinton a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1620A1.html
  • ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1621A1.html
  • ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. ("Momentum") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Momentum a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1627A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Evertek, Inc. ("Evertek" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Evertek, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Evertek's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Evertek have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1628A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Topsham Communications, LLC ("Topsham" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Topsham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Topsham's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Topsham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1632A1.html
  • Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications ("B & B Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B & B Communications Network, Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & B Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B & B Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1633A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GBT Communications, Inc. ("GBT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GBT Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GBT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GBT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1634A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. ("Cedar-Wapsie" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cedar-Wapsie's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cedar-Wapsie have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1635A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NMRSA6-III Partnership ("NMRSA6-III" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NMRSA6-III Partnership for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NMRSA6-III's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NMRSA6-III have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1636A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. ("SOTI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SOTI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and SOTI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1637A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Peetz Communications, LLC ("Peetz" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Peetz Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Peetz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Peetz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1638A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Northeast Competitive Access Provider ("NCAP" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Northeast Competitive Access Provider for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCAP's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NCAP have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1639A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Carr Communications, Inc. ("Carr" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Carr Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carr's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Carr have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1640A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. ("Ogden" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ogden's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ogden have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1641A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westphalia Communications, Inc. ("Westphalia" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westphalia Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westphalia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westphalia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1642A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and SpringCom, Inc. ("SpringCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against SpringCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SpringCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and SpringCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-16A1.html
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and AT&T, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates (collectively "AT&T" or "the AT&T Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Bureau against the AT&T Companies for possible violation of section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(3)(ii), 64.2008(d)(3)(v) and 64.2009(a) of the Federal Communication Commission's ("Commission") rules relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and sections 201(b) and 254 of the Act, and sections 54.712(a), 69.131 and 69.158 of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. 2. The Bureau and the AT&T Companies have negotiated the terms of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1709A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fort Mojave Television, Inc. ("Fort Mojave" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fort Mojave Television, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fort Mojave's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fort Mojave have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1742A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and AP&T Wireless, Inc. ("AP&T" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against AP&T Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AP&T's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and AP&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1743A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Falcon1, Inc. ("Falcon1" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Falcon1 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Falcon1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Falcon1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1744A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TSC Communications, Inc. ("TSC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TSC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TSC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1884A1.html
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad, Inc. ("Cellular Abroad"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Cellular Abroad a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Cellular Abroad's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Cellular Abroad, we agree with Cellular Abroad that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Cellular Abroad is not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1885A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The City of Daytona Beach ("Daytona Beach"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Daytona Beach a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Daytona Beach's apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Daytona Beach, we agree with Daytona Beach that Daytona Beach was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due. Accordingly,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1886A1.html
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC ("Nebraska Supercomm"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Nebraska Supercomm a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Nebraska Supercomm's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon new information provided by Nebraska Supercomm, we agree with Nebraska Supercomm that it did not have any telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1888A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. ("Pilgrim"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Pilgrim a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Pilgrim's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Pilgrim, we agree with Pilgrim that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. During the 2007 calendar year, Pilgrim
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1889A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. ("Visionary"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Visionary a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Visionary's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Visionary, we agree with Visionary that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Visionary is not a telecommunications carrier,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1891A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc ("Zicore"). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Zicore a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Zicore's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Zicore, we agree with Zicore that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1926A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc ("Isan"). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Isan a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Isan's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Isan, we agree with Isan that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1928A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC ("Plains"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Plains a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Plains' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Plains, we agree with Plains that it had timely filed its CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1929A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound ("Orange"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Orange a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Orange's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Orange, we agree with Orange that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1930A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. ("Freedom"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Freedom's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Freedom, we agree with Freedom that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1931A1.html
  • this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company ("Allendale"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Allendale a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Allendale's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Allendale, we agree with Allendale that it had timely filed its annual CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1932A1.html
  • In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated ("Worldwide Marketing"). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Worldwide Marketing a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Worldwide Marketing's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Worldwide Marketing, we agree with Worldwide Marketing that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1980A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance ("Clarks"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Clarks a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Clarks' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Clarks, we agree with Clarks that it was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due because it ceased offering
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-256A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Big Telephone, Inc. ("Big Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Big Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-257A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. ("Ben Lomand Rural") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand Rural is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-258A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ben Lomand Communications, LLC ("Ben Lomand") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-259A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Bellvoz Corp. ("Bellvoz" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bellvoz is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-260A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Bee Line Cable ("Bee Line" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bee Line is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-261A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc.("Atlantic" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Atlantic is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-264A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., ("American Fiber" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that American Fiber is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-265A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Action Communications, Inc. ("Action" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Action is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-267A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that 800 Response Information Services LLC ("800 Response" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that 800 Response is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-269A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. ("Buckeye" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Buckeye is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-270A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Cherokee Telephone Company ("Cherokee" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cherokee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-271A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that China Telecom (Americas) Corporation ("China Telecom" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that China Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-276A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom ("Communications Venture") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Communications Venture is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-277A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications ("Aquis" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Aquis is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-278A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Consolidated Telephone Company ("Consolidated Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Consolidated Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-280A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Clear World Communications Corporation ("Clear World" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clear World is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-282A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. ("D.G.A." or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that D.G.A. is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-290A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Isan Telecom, Inc. ("Isan" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Isan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-293A1.html
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC ("Tennessee" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Tennessee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-294A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging ("Kitchen Productions" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Kitchen Productions is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-296A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. ("KanOkla Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that KanOkla Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-297A1.html
  • 0017294992 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Latino Telecom, Inc. ("Latino Telecom") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Latino Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-298A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Threshold Communications, Inc. ("Threshold" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Threshold is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-299A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Leflore Communications, Inc. ("Leflore" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Leflore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-302A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. ("Legacy Long Distance" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Legacy Long Distance is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-303A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. ("M & L Enterprises") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that M & L Enterprises is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-305A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC ("Liberty" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Liberty is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-306A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One ("Call One") or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Call One is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-308A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that McClure Telephone Company ("McClure Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that McClure Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-309A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that VDL, Inc. d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers ("VDL" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that VDL is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-310A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe ("Broadstripe" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Broadstripe is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-312A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Volunteer First Services, LLC ("Volunteer") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Volunteer is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-315A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Commnet Wireless, LLC ("Commnet" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Commnet is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-316A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Momentum Telecom, Inc. ("Momentum" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Momentum is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-317A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated ("Worldwide Marketing" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Worldwide Marketing is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-318A1.html
  • FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. ("Angel Communications" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Angel Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-321A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Data Radio Management Company, Inc. ("Data Radio Management" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Data Radio Management is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-322A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find the Scott C. MacIntyre ("MacIntyre" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that MacIntyre is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-323A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Edward Adams Associates, Inc. ("Edward Adams Associates" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Edward Adams Associates is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-324A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Zicore Services, Inc. ("Zicore" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Zicore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-327A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that SI2Way, Inc. ("SI2Way" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SI2Way is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-328A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Wayne Frank ("Frank" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Frank is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-331A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that James T. Hopper ("Hopper" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hopper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-332A1.html
  • 0005027701 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Arthur N. Sherman ("Sherman") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sherman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-333A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. ("Telebeeper" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telebeeper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-334A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find That Clifford E. Bade ("Clifford Bade" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clifford Bade is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-335A1.html
  • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company ("National Brands" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that National Brands is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-337A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Netcarrier Telecom, Inc.("Netcarrier" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Netcarrier is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-338A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Network Innovations, Inc. ("Network Innovations" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Network Innovations is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-340A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Nunn Telephone Company ("Nunn" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Nunn is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-341A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that O. Richard Knutson ("O.R. Knutson" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that O.R. Knutson is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-342A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that One Touch India LLC ("One Touch") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that One Touch is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-344A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom("Phillips County" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Phillips County is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-347A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Prime Time Ventures ("Prime Time Ventures" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Prime Time Ventures is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-348A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that PriorityOne is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-349A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that ProCom LMR, Inc. ("ProCom" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ProCom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-350A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find the Protek Leasing Corp. ("Protek" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Protek is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-352A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that DAR Communications Corporation ("DAR" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that DAR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-357A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. ("Santa Rosa" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-358A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. ("Santa Rosa" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-359A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. ("Santel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-360A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Securetel Network Inc. ("Securetel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Securetel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-362A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. ("Shreveport" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Shreveport is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-367A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Dixville Telephone Company ("Dixville Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Dixville Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-370A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that E & F Telecom, Inc. ("E & F Telecom") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that E & F Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-371A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, ("Eastern Colorado" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Eastern Colorado is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-372A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that EGIX, Inc. ("EGIX" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that EGIX is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-373A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that South Central Wireless, Inc, dba SCTelcom ("SCTelcom") or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SCTelcom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-374A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. ("Specialized Mobile Radio" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Specialized Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-378A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that BKT Telecom Corp. ("BKT" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that BKT is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-380A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies ("First Mile") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that First Mile is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-382A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Gabriel Wireless, LLC ("Gabriel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Gabriel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-383A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that T2 Communications, LLC ("T2 Communications" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that T2 Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-384A1.html
  • 0014872337 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ganoco, Inc. ("Ganoco" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ganoco is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-385A1.html
  • FRN: 0014225684 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Telchin Corporation ("Telchin") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telchin is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-386A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that General Mobile Radio Service, Inc. ("General Mobile Radio" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that General Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-391A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. ("Hartman" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hartman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-394A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Highland Communications, LLC ("Highland" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Highland is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-401A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC ("TeleSpan" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that TeleSpan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-426A1.html
  • Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1052A1.html
  • we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC ("Freedom Communications"). On February 26, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom Communications a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Freedom Communications' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Freedom Communications, we agree with Freedom Communications that it had submitted, by mail, a complete CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year; although several
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1118A1.html
  • their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation regarding Verizon's compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222(c)(1), and section 64.2007 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2007. II. BACKGROUND 2. On January 27, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, Verizon filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its opt-out mechanism for obtaining customers' approval for use of their customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). The notice stated that, on January 16, 2009, Verizon discovered that the total number of opt-out customers compiled by its vendor was greater than the number in its database by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1129A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BBG Communications, Inc. ("BBG Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BBG Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BBG Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BBG Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1130A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CMC Telecom, Inc. ("CMC Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CMC Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMC Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CMC Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1131A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and DialToneServices, L.P. ("DialToneServices" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against DialToneServices for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DialToneServices' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DialToneServices have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1132A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Faircall Corporation d/b/a 1-800 Faircall ("Faircall Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Faircall Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Faircall Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Faircall Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1133A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. ("GLC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GLC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GLC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1134A1.html
  • or "Commission") and Impact Network Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Impact Long Distance ("Impact Network Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Impact Network Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Impact Network Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Impact Network Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1135A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Northwest Telephone, Inc. ("NWT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Northwest Telephone, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NWT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NWT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1136A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NovoLink Communications, Inc. ("NovoLink Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NovoLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NovoLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NovoLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1138A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Opcom, Inc. d/b/a WCS Telecom ("Opcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Opcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Opcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Opcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1140A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. ("Orlando" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Orlando's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Orlando have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1141A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Quasar Communications Corporation ("Quasar Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Quasar Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quasar Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Quasar Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1142A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele Uno, Inc. ("Tele Uno" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele Uno for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Uno's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele Uno have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1182A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Arkadin, Inc. ("Arkadin" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Arkadin for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Arkadin's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Arkadin have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1183A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clarksville Mutual Tel. Co. d/b/a Clarksville Mutual Telephone Company ("Clarksville Mutual" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clarksville Mutual for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clarksville Mutual's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clarksville Mutual have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1184A1.html
  • E. Ritter Telephone Company, and Tri-County Tel. Co., Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Telephone Co., Inc. (collectively, "Ritter" or "Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ritter for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ritter's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ritter have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1185A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lamar County Cellular, Inc. ("Lamar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lamar County Cellular, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lamar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lamar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1186A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Michigan Access, Inc. ("Michigan Access" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Michigan Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Michigan Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Michigan Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1187A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Reinbeck Municipal Telecommunications Utility ("Reinbeck Municipal" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Reinbeck Municipal for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reinbeck Municipal's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Reinbeck Municipal have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1188A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and US Telesis, Inc. ("US Telesis" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against US Telesis for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding US Telesis' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and US Telesis have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1250A1.html
  • October 5, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and Global Information Technologies ("GIT"). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bureau against GIT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's ("Commission") rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and, among other things, section 254 of the Act and section 54.712(a) of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. 2. The Bureau and GIT have negotiated the terms of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1298A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BroadRiver Communication Corporation ("BroadRiver" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BroadRiver Communication Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BroadRiver's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BroadRiver have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1299A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and B W Telcom Long Distance ("B W Telcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B W Telcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B W Telcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B W Telcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1300A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Comteck of Indiana, Inc. ("Comteck of Indiana" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Comteck of Indiana for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Comteck of Indiana's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Comteck of Indiana have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1301A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. ("Communications 1" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications 1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Communications 1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1302A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. ("Craw-Kan" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Craw-Kan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Craw-Kan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1303A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and DTC Cable, Inc. ("DTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against DTC Cable, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1304A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and FiberComm, L.C. ("FiberComm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against FiberComm, L.C. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FiberComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and FiberComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1305A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Glenwood Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Glenwood Long Distance ("Glenwood" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Glenwood for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Glenwood's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Glenwood have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1306A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. ("Hamilton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc.'s apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Hamilton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1307A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Home Long Distance, Inc. ("Home Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Home Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Home Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Home Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1308A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the Omnibus NAL, each
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1326A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GlobalNova, Inc. ("GlobalNova" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GlobalNova for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalNova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GlobalNova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1327A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Horizon Technology ("Horizon" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Horizon Technology for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Horizon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Horizon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1328A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and KeyArt Communications, Inc. ("KeyArt" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KeyArt Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KeyArt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KeyArt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1329A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and MTC Communications, Inc. ("MTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against MTC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding MTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and MTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1330A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NNTC Wireless, LLC ("NNTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NNTC Wireless, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NNTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NNTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1331A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nunn Communications, LLC ("Nunn Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nunn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nunn Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nunn Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1332A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Phillips County Communications, LLC ("Phillips" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Phillips County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Phillips's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Phillips have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1333A1.html
  • "Commission") and Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance ("Pioneer" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pioneer's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pioneer have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1334A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Roggen Telephone Enterprises, Inc. ("RTE" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RTE for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RTE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1335A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Prairie Networks, LLC ("Prairie Networks" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Prairie Networks, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Prairie Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Prairie Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1336A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company ("Toledo" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toledo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Toledo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1337A1.html
  • & TV, Inc. ("Vernon Communications" or "Company"). Vernon Communications was formerly a subsidiary of Mutual Telephone Company. The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Vernon Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Vernon Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mutual Telephone Company, on behalf of Vernon Communications, have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1338A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and WUE, Inc. ("WUE" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against WUE, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WUE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and WUE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1339A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Andina Corporation ("Andina Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Andina Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Andina Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Andina Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1340A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Answer Fort Smith, Inc. ("Answer Fort Smith" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Answer Fort Smith for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answer Fort Smith's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Answer Fort Smith have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1367A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Korea Telecom America, Inc. ("Korea Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Korea Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Korea Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Korea Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1370A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CMOLS, LLC ("CMOLS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CMOLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMOLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CMOLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1371A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Sound of Tri-State ("Tri-State" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tri-State for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-State's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tri-State have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1372A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Bingo Consulting, LLC ("Bingo" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bingo for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bingo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bingo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1374A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Paging and Telemessaging, Inc. ("Advanced Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1375A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Airwaves Communications, Inc. ("Airwaves Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Airwaves Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Airwaves Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Airwaves Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1376A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Axxis Communications, Inc., ("Axxis Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Axxis Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Axxis Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Axxis Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1444A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ("Dialaround"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dialaround for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Dialaround's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dialaround have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1452A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC ("River City Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against River City Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding River City Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and River City Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1472A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Western Communications Services, Inc. ("Western Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Western Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Western Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Western Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1473A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westside Paging, Inc. d/b/a Westside Communications ("Westside Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westside Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westside Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westside Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1474A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ray's Electronics, Inc. ("Ray's Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ray's Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ray's Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ray's Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1475A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Page Plus, Inc. ("Page Plus" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Page Plus for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Page Plus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Page Plus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1476A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobile Radio Communications, Inc. d/b/a MobilFone ("Mobile Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobile Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobile Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1477A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Huffman Communications ("Huffman" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Huffman for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huffman's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Huffman have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1478A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Kotana Communications, Inc. ("Kotana Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Kotana Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kotana Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Kotana Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1479A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Teleplex, Inc. d/b/a Alert Communications ("Teleplex" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Teleplex for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teleplex's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Teleplex have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1480A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Matthews Answering Service, Inc. ("Matthews Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Matthews Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Matthews Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Matthews Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1481A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lancaster Radio Paging, Inc. d/b/a Access Telecommunications Network ("Lancaster Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lancaster Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lancaster Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lancaster Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1482A1.html
  • or "Commission") and UIDC Telecom Division d/b/a Rio Networks f/k/a Rio Communications, Inc. ("Rio Networks" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Rio Networks for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Rio Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Rio Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1484A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Satellite Services, Inc. ("International Satellite Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Satellite Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Satellite Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Satellite Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1485A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westel, Inc. ("Westel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1486A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and eKit.com, Inc. ("eKit.com" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against eKit.com for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding eKit.com's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and eKit.com have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1487A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CresComm Services, Inc. d/b/a Crescent Communications Co. ("CresComm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CresComm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CresComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CresComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1488A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Alpha Message Center, Inc. ("Alpha Message" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alpha Message for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alpha Message's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Alpha Message have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1489A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clark Communications, Inc. ("Clark Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clark Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clark Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clark Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1490A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Bryan 800 Communications, Inc. ("Bryan 800" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bryan 800 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bryan 800's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bryan 800 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1491A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cottonwood Holdings Corporation d/b/a Beep West Radio Paging ("Cottonwood Holdings" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cottonwood Holdings for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cottonwood Holdings' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cottonwood Holdings have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1499A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fones West Digital Systems, Inc. d/b/a Lynx Wireless ("Fones West" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fones West for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fones West's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fones West have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1500A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Janaslani Enterprises, LLC ("Janaslani" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Janaslani Enterprises, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Janaslani's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Janaslani have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1501A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fluent Inc. ("Fluent" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fluent for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fluent's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fluent have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1502A1.html
  • or "Commission") and The Money Store, LP d/b/a The Money Box ("The Money Store" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against The Money Store for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Money Store's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and The Money Store have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1503A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and The Contact Network, Inc. d/b/a InLine ("The Contact Network" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against The Contact Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Contact Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and The Contact Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1504A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Total Communication Systems, Inc. ("Total Communication Systems" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Total Communication Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Total Communication Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Total Communication Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1505A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Basin Communications Systems, Inc. ("Basin Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Basin Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Basin Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Basin Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1506A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telstar Communications, Inc. ("Telstar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telstar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telstar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telstar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1507A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Terral Telephone Company, Inc. ("Terral Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Terral Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Terral Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Terral Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1508A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Signal Telecommunications, Inc. ("Signal Telecommunications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Signal Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Signal Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Signal Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1524A1.html
  • Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively "KLM"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KLM for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding KLM's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KLM have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1526A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ninetel, Inc. ("Ninetel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ninetel, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ninetel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ninetel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1527A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Oratel, Inc. ("Oratel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Oratel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Oratel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Oratel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1528A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ONS-Telecom, LLC ("ONS-Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ONS-Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ONS-Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ONS-Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1530A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and David L. English d/b/a Mobile Communications Services ("David L. English" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against David L. English for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding David L. English's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and David L. English have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1531A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Communications Specialists, Inc. ("Communications Specialist" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Communications Specialist for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications Specialists' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Communications Specialists have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1532A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Flower City Paging, Inc. ("Flower City" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Flower City Paging, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Flower City's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Flower City have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1533A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and C & C Communications ("C & C" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against C & C for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding C & C's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and C & C have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1534A1.html
  • B & C Mobile Communications, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Mobile ("B & C Mobile" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B & C Mobile for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & C Mobile's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B & C Mobile have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1535A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Relay Communications Corporation ("Relay Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Relay Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Relay Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Relay Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1536A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Critical Alert Systems, LLC, on behalf of Aroostook Paging, Inc. ("Aroostook" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Aroostook for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Aroostook's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Aroostook have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1568A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lloyd Hoff Holding Corporation d/b/a Black Bear Paging ("Lloyd Hoff" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lloyd Hoff for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lloyd Hoff's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lloyd Hoff have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1569A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lucky Communications, Inc. ("Lucky Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lucky Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lucky Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lucky Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1570A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Quick-Tel, Inc. ("Quick-Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Quick-Tel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quick-Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Quick-Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1571A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NexGen Integrated Communications, L.L.C. ("NexGen Integrated Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NexGen Integrated Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NexGen Integrated Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NexGen Integrated Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1572A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Iscom, Inc. ("Iscom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Iscom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Iscom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Iscom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1573A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Transcard, LLC f/k/a Innovative Processing Solutions, LLC ("Innovative Processing" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Innovative Processing for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Innovative Processing's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Innovative Processing have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1576A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GlobalPhone Corp. ("GlobalPhone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GlobalPhone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalPhone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GlobalPhone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1577A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GeoNet Communications Group, Inc. ("GeoNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GeoNet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GeoNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GeoNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1578A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Gateway Wireless Services, L.C. ("Gateway Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Gateway Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Gateway Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Gateway Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1580A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and First Communications, Inc. ("First Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against First Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding First Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and First Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1581A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ezequiel Guido d/b/a E Marketing ("Ezequiel Guido" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ezequiel Guido for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ezequiel Guido's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ezequiel Guido have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1582A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Circle Telephone Company ("Circle Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Circle Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Circle Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Circle Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1583A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Carolina Mobile Communications, Ltd. ("Carolina" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Carolina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carolina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Carolina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1584A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Allcom Communications, Inc. ("Allcom Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Allcom Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Allcom Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Allcom Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1663A1.html
  • New Talk, Inc. (formerly known as Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get a Phone) (collectively "New Talk"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Talk for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding New Talk's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Talk have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1679A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and World Communications, Inc. ("World Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against World Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and World Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1680A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Global Connect Telecommunications, Inc. ("Global Connect" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Global Connect for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Connect's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Global Connect have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1681A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Courtesy Communications, Inc. ("Courtesy Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Courtesy Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Courtesy Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Courtesy Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1682A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and VIP Communications, Inc. ("VIP Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against VIP Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding VIP Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and VIP Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1683A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Telnet, Inc. ("International Telnet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Telnet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Telnet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Telnet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1684A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Range Corporation d/b/a Range Telecommunications ("Range Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Range Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Range Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Range Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1685A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Madera Radio Dispatch, Inc. ("Madera Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Madera Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Madera Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Madera Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1686A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Suncoast Technology, Inc. ("Suncoast" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Suncoast Technology, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Suncoast's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Suncoast have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1687A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tri-Caps, Inc. ("Tri-Caps" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tri-Caps for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-Caps' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tri-Caps have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1688A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TTI Comm Corp. ("TTI Comm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TTI Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TTI Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TTI Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1761A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications ("Audio-Video"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Audio-Video for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Audio-Video's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Audio-Video have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1770A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Teton Communications, Inc. ("Teton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Teton for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Teton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1771A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma ("Mobile Phone of Oklahoma" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobile Phone of Oklahoma for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Phone of Oklahoma's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1772A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Chapin Long Distance, Inc. ("Chapin Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Chapin Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Chapin Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Chapin Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1774A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lunex Telecom, Inc. ("Lunex Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lunex Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lunex Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lunex Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1775A1.html
  • "Commission") and Maverick Media of Eau Claire Communications, LLC d/b/a Page Call Communications ("Maverick Media" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Maverick Media for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Maverick Media's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Maverick Media have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1776A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and McBlue Telecom, Inc. ("McBlue" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against McBlue for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding McBlue's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and McBlue have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1778A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Metro Beeper, Inc. ("Metro Beeper" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Metro Beeper for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metro Beeper's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Metro Beeper have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1779A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Milbank Communications, Inc. ("Milbank Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Milbank Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Milbank Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Milbank Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1781A1.html
  • or "Commission") and Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc. ("Cordova" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cordova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cordova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1819A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Argentina USA, Inc. ("Telecom Argentina" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telecom Argentina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telecom Argentina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telecom Argentina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1821A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and The Beeper People, Inc. d/b/a AirPage ("Beeper People" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Beeper People for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Beeper People's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Beeper People have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1822A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Texapage N.E., Inc. ("Texapage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Texapage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Texapage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Texapage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1823A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Valley Communications of Moses Lake, Inc. d/b/a Tele-Waves ("Valley Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Valley Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Valley Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Valley Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1824A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and World Communication Center, Inc. ("World Communication Center" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against World Communication Center for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communication Center's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and World Communication Center have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1825A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tim Ron Enterprises, LLC ("Tim Ron Enterprises" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tim Ron Enterprises for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tim Ron Enterprises' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tim Ron Enterprises have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1826A1.html
  • "Commission") and Radio Communications of Charleston, Inc. d/b/a FirstPage ("Radio Communications of Charleston" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Radio Communications of Charleston for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Radio Communications of Charleston's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Radio Communications of Charleston have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1827A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Wireless Telecommunications Corp. f/k/a Westar Communications, Inc. ("Westar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1828A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Leflore Communications, Inc. ("Leflore" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Leflore Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Leflore's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Leflore have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1829A1.html
  • X5 Solutions, X5 SLC, LLC d/b/a X5 Solutions, and X5 Solutions, Inc. (collectively, "X5 Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against X5 Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X5 Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and X5 Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1830A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Premiere Communications Systems, Inc. ("Premiere Communications Systems" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Premiere Communications Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Premiere Communications Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Premiere Communications Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1831A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lectronics, Inc. ("Lectronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lectronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lectronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lectronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1832A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hello Pager Company, Inc. d/b/a Hello, Inc. ("Hello Pager" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Hello Pager for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hello Pager's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Hello Pager have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1833A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and RCC, Inc. d/b/a Radio-Comm Co. ("RCC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RCC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1834A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Globaltel LD, Inc. d/b/a American Roaming Network ("ARN" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ARN for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ARN's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ARN have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1835A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LaVergne's TeleMessaging, Inc. ("LaVergne's" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LaVergne's for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LaVergne's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LaVergne's have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1841A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless ("Keystone Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Keystone Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Keystone Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Keystone Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1842A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd Mobile"). 2. On March 26, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Amp'd Mobile for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Amp'd Mobile was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Amp'd Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1843A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. ("Oneida"). 2. On March 29, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Oneida for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Oneida was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1844A1.html
  • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ("CTI"). 2. On August 10, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to CTI for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 4. IT IS
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1845A1.html
  • for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless ("Key"). 2. On March 28, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Key for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Key was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1846A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville Telephone"). 2. On July 19, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Mechanicsville Telephone for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mechanicsville Telephone was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1898A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telephone Answering Service, Inc. ("Telephone Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telephone Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telephone Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telephone Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1899A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Alaska Telecom, Inc. ("Alaska Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alaska Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alaska Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Alaska Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1900A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ATL Communications d/b/a Sunriver Telecom ("ATL Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ATL Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ATL Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ATL Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1901A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CSM Wireless, Inc. ("CSM Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CSM Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CSM Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CSM Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1902A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CTI Long Distance ("CTI Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CTI Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CTI Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTI Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1911A1.html
  • Liability ("NALs") released in February, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In February, 2009, the Bureau issued to each of these companies a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture based on their apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to file a compliant CPNI certification with the Bureau. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1913A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation ("Easterbrooke Cellular"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Easterbrooke Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Easterbrooke Cellular's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Easterbrooke Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1923A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComTech21, LLC ("ComTech21" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComTech21 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech21's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComTech21 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1924A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North Bell Communications Corp. ("North Bell Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North Bell Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Bell Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and North Bell Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1925A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Go Solo Technologies ("Go Solo Technologies" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Go Solo Technologies for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go Solo Technologies' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Go Solo Technologies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1926A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CloseCall America, Inc. ("CloseCall" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CloseCall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CloseCall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CloseCall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1927A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and KK Communications, L.P. d/b/a Autophone of Laredo, LTD ("KK Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KK Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KK Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KK Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1928A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Midwestern Telecommunications, Inc. ("Midwestern" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Midwestern for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwestern's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Midwestern have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1929A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Com-Nav, Inc. d/b/a Radio Telephone of Maine ("Com-Nav" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Com-Nav for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Com-Nav's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Com-Nav have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1930A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cook Telecom, Inc. ("Cook Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cook Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cook Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cook Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1939A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and 01 Communications, Inc. ("01 Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against [Company name] for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 01 Communication's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and 01 Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1940A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Manchester-Hartland Telephone Co. ("Manchester-Hartland" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Manchester-Hartland for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Manchester-Hartland's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Manchester-Hartland have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1941A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Midwest Management, Inc. -- Consolidated ("Midwest Management" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Midwest Management for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwest Management's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Midwest Management have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1943A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ProPage, Inc. ("ProPage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ProPage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ProPage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ProPage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1944A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Standard Electronics West, Inc. d/b/a ALLPAGE ("Standard Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Standard Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Standard Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Standard Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1962A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and X2 Comm, Inc. d/b/a DC Communications ("X2 Comm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against X2 Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X2 Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and X2 Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1963A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nova Cellular West, Inc. d/b/a San Diego Wireless ("Nova Cellular" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nova Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nova Cellular's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nova Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1964A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Pete's Communications, Inc. ("Pete's Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pete's Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pete's Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pete's Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1965A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Omnicom Paging Plus, LLC ("Omnicom Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Omnicom Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Omnicom Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Omnicom Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1966A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North Sight Communications, Inc. ("North Sight Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North Sight Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Sight Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and North Sight Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1978A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Go2tel.com, Inc. ("Go2tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Go2tel.com, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go2tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Go2tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1979A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and FullTel, Inc. ("FullTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against FullTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FullTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and FullTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1980A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tel Tec, Inc. ("Tel Tec" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tel Tec for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tel Tec's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tel Tec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1981A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tularosa Communications, Inc. ("Tularosa" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tularosa Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tularosa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tularosa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1982A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC ("LTS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LTS's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1983A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC ("Magellan" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Magellan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Magellan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1984A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and American Page Network ("American Page Network" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against American Page Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding American Page Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and American Page Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1985A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ruddata Corporation d/b/a VCI Internet Service ("Ruddata" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ruddata for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ruddata's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ruddata have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1986A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele-Beep Paging Co. ("Tele-Beep Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele-Beep Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele-Beep Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele-Beep Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1987A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TRI-M Communications, Inc. ("TRI-M Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TRI-M Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TRI-M Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TRI-M Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2017A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mountain Paging Network, Inc. ("Mountain Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mountain Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mountain Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2018A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dixie-Net Communications ("Dixie-Net" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dixie-Net for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dixie-Net's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dixie-Net have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2019A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Litecall, Inc. ("Litecall" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Litecall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Litecall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Litecall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2020A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BendTel d/b/a Bend Data Center ("BendTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BendTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BendTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BendTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2021A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Biddeford Internet Corporation d/b/a Great Works Internet ("Biddeford" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Biddeford for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Biddeford's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Biddeford have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2022A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TelNet Worldwide, Inc. ("TelNet Worldwide" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TelNet Worldwide for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelNet Worldwide's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TelNet Worldwide have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2023A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Web Fire Communications, Inc. ("Web Fire" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Web Fire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Web Fire's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Web Fire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2024A1.html
  • and Sagir, Inc. d/b/a Indigo Wireless and Americell PA3, LP d/b/a Indigo Wireless ("Indigo Wireless" or "Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Indigo Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Indigo Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Indigo Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2025A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Raycom Electronics, Inc. ("Raycom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Raycom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Raycom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Raycom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2026A1.html
  • "Commission") and T/A Apartment Services, Inc. d/b/a Off Campus Telecommunications, Inc. ("T/A Apartment Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against T/A Apartment Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding T/A Apartment Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and T/A Apartment Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2027A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Shorelink Communications Corp. ("Shorelink" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Shorelink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Shorelink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Shorelink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2028A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services ("General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2052A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and St. Olaf College ("St. Olaf" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against St. Olaf for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding St. Olaf's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and St. Olaf have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2053A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Outfitter Satellite, Inc. ("Outfitter Satellite" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Outfitter Satellite for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Outfitter Satellite's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Outfitter Satellite have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2054A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and A.M.S. Voicecom, Inc. ("A.M.S. Voicecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against A.M.S. Voicecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A.M.S. Voicecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and A.M.S. Voicecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2055A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Sumrada Communications Service, Inc. ("Sumrada" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Sumrada for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Sumrada's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Sumrada have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2056A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Huntleigh Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("Huntleigh Telecommunications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Huntleigh Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huntleigh Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Huntleigh Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2131A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Corporate Networking, Inc., ("Advanced" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Corporate Networking for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2135A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Answerphone Services, Inc. d/b/a Direct Page Communications ("Answerphone Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Answerphone Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answerphone Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Answerphone Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2136A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Utility Telephone, Inc. and Anew Telecommunications d/b/a Call America (jointly, "Utility" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Utility for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Utility's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Utility have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2137A1.html
  • Inc. d/b/a Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. and Reserve Long Distance Company, Inc. (jointly, "Reserve Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Reserve Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reserve Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Reserve Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2138A1.html
  • Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company ("Bluegrass" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bluegrass's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bluegrass have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2173A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and 3U Telecom, Inc. ("3U Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against 3U Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 3U Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and 3U Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2174A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobilephone of Humboldt, Inc. ("Mobilephone of Humboldt" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobilephone of Humboldt for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilephone of Humboldt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobilephone of Humboldt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2175A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ImOn Communications, LLC ("ImOn" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ImOn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ImOn's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ImOn have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2176A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Professional Answering Service, Inc. ("Professional Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Professional Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Professional Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Professional Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2177A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and User Centric Communications, Inc. ("User Centric" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against User Centric for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding User Centric's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and User Centric have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2205A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Custom Tel, LLC ("Custom Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Custom Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Custom Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Custom Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2206A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Global Tech Telecommunications, Inc. ("Global Tech" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Global Tech for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Tech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Global Tech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2207A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and HUB Communications, Inc. ("HUB Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against HUB Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding HUB Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and HUB Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2208A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mountain Communications and Electronics, Inc. ("Mountain Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mountain Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mountain Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2209A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telegration, Inc. ("Telegration" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telegration for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telegration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telegration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2224A1.html
  • terms and conditions of this Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification, and formally terminating the above-captioned Investigations. l. "Parties" means AT&T and the Bureau, each of which is a "Party." m. "Rules" means those rules and regulations codified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. III. BACKGROUND Investigation EB-09-TC-382 3. On June 1, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, AT&T filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") opt-out mechanism. According to AT&T, the CPNI toll-free number used by small business customers to opt-out was mistakenly disconnected. AT&T reported that when small business customers called the toll-free number during business hours, they were automatically routed to a call
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2272A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Parker FiberNet, LLC ("Parker FiberNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Parker FiberNet, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Parker FiberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Parker FiberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2273A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CP Telecom Inc. f/k/a ComputerPro, Inc. ("ComputerPro" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComputerPro for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComputerPro's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComputerPro have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2274A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Unitycomm, LLC d/b/a U4Com ("Unitycomm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Unitycomm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Unitycomm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Unitycomm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2282A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2325A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and A & W Communications, Inc. ("A & W Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against A & W Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A & W Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and A & W Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2327A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Kelley's Tele-Communications, Inc. ("Kelley's Tele-Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Kelley's Tele-Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kelley's Tele-Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Kelley's Tele-Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2328A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobilpage, Inc. ("Mobilpage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobilpage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilpage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobilpage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2363A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Paxx Telecom, LLC ("Paxx Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Paxx Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Paxx Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Paxx Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2364A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dunnell Tel. Co. ("Dunnell" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dunnell for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dunnell's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dunnell have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2371A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2390A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and New Start Communication Corp. ("New Start" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Start for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Start's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Start have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-292A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). II. BACKGROUND
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-293A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). II. BACKGROUND
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-692A1.html
  • North American Numbering Plan ("NANP") and Local Number Portability ("LNP") administration; and the submission of information as set forth on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q). The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSpan for possible violations of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSpan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Bureau and ComSpan have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-832A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. ("HBC"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against HBC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and HBC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-833A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. ("Shoreham"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Shoreham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Shoreham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1025A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Voip Alliance, LLC ("Voip Alliance"). Voip Alliance has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Voip Alliance is a prepaid calling card provider located in McAllen, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Voip Alliance is subject to the requirements of section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1026A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Touch-Tel USA, LLC ("Touch-Tel USA"). Touch-Tel USA has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Touch-Tel USA is a prepaid calling card provider located in Houston, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Touch-Tel USA is subject to the requirements of section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1028A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Phone Club Corporation ("Phone Club"). Phone Club has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Phone Club is a reseller of local and long distance telecommunications services located in Miami, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Phone Club is subject to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1029A1.html
  • Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina ("Nu Era Telecom"). Nu Era Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Nu Era Telecom is an interexchange telecommunications carrier located in Miami Beach, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Nu Era Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1031A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. ("DigitGlobal Communications"). DigitGlobal Communications has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. DigitGlobal Communications is a telecommunications carrier located in Kew Gardens, New York. As a telecommunications carrier, DigitGlobal Communications is subject to the requirements of section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1032A1.html
  • Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com ("Straightel"). Straightel has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Straightel is a Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") and prepaid calling card carrier located in Miramar, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Straightel is subject to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1115A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Communications, Inc. ("Southwest Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Southwest Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1116A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LGT - Latin Global Telecom, LLC ("LGT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LGT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LGT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LGT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1142A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely and/or compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1150A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CCI Network Services, LLC ("CCI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1153A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Public Service Communications, Inc. ("Public Service Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Public Service Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Public Service Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Public Service Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1197A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Toly Digital Network, Inc. ("Toly Digital" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Toly Digital for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toly Digital's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Toly Digital have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-119A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Business Integration Network ("Advance Business Integration" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Business Integration Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Business Integration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced Business Integration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-120A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Call-O-Call, Inc. ("Call-O-Call" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Call-O-Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call-O-Call's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Call-O-Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1220A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and AccessCom, Inc. ("AccessCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against AccessCom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AccessCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and AccessCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1258A1.html
  • follows upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Dezco Communications, Inc. ("Dezco Communications"). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Dezco Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Dezco Communications was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1259A1.html
  • Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Galaxy Internet Services, Inc.. ("Galaxy Internet Services"). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Galaxy Internet Services apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Galaxy Internet Services was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1436A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and New Bridge Technologies, Inc. ("New Bridge" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Bridge for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Bridge's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Bridge have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1469A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ValuTel Communications, Inc. ("ValuTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ValuTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ValuTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ValuTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1484A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Saving Call, LLC ("Saving Call" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Saving Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Saving Call's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Saving Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1497A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-14A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telebeep, Inc. ("Telebeep" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telebeep for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telebeep's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telebeep have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1509A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Accutel of Texas, LP ("Accutel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Accutel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Accutel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Accutel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1510A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Revolution Communications Company, LTD ("Revolution Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Revolution Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Revolution Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Revolution Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1568A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Crossfire Telecommunications, LLC ("Crossfire" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Crossfire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Crossfire's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Crossfire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-15A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Multi Voice, Inc. ("Multi Voice" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Multi Voice for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Multi Voice's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Multi Voice have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1636A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NTS Services Corp. ("NTS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NTS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NTS's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-16A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lyca Tel, LLC ("Lyca Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lyca Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lyca Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lyca Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1710A1.html
  • Forfeiture of February 18, 2008, we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Blue Casa Communications, Inc. d/b/a Blue Casa Communications, LLC (Blue Casa or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Blue Casa apparently liable for a forfeiture for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1769A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1771A1.html
  • upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc. (Intercel or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Intercel apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Intercel was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1794A1.html
  • a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 28, 2011 by Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot ("Think 12"). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for Think 12's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. II. Background 2. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois that resells interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-17A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clon Communications, LLC ("Clon" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clon for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-186A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Royal Phone Company, LLC ("Royal Phone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Royal Phone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Royal Phone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Royal Phone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1876A1.html
  • for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. (Unitec or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or the Communications Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1877A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-187A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Franz, Inc. d/b/a Telelight, Inc. ("Franz" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Franz for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Franz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Franz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-188A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CyberNet Communications, Inc. ("CyberNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CyberNet Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CyberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CyberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-189A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Davidson Telecom, LLC ("Davidson" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Davidson Telecom, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Davidson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Davidson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-18A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Central Communications Service Co. ("Central Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Central Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Central Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Central Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-190A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Access, Inc. ("International Access" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1944A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $29,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2008 and 2009. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-198A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine North, Inc. ("NationsLine North" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine North for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine North's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine North have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-199A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine Delaware, Inc. ("NationsLine Delaware" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine Delaware for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Delaware's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine Delaware have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-19A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Atlantic Telecom, Inc. ("Atlantic Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Atlantic Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Atlantic Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Atlantic Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-200A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine District of Columbia, Inc. ("NationsLine DC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine DC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine DC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine DC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-201A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine Virginia, Inc. ("NationsLine Virginia" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine Virginia for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Virginia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine Virginia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-202A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine, Inc. ("NationsLine" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-20A1.html
  • and Advantage Wireless Communications, Inc. d/b/a Almar Communications and Blackhawk Communications ("Advantage Wireless Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advantage Wireless Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advantage Wireless Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advantage Wireless Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-275A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Delta Telecom, Inc. ("Delta Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Delta Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Delta Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Delta Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-277A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Coast International, Inc. ("Coast International" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Coast International for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Coast International's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Coast International have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-280A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cyber Mesa Computer Systems, Inc. ("Cyber Mesa" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cyber Mesa for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cyber Mesa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cyber Mesa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-299A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. ("DNA" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DNA's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DNA have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-313A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Simplink Corporation ("Simplink" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Simplink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Simplink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Simplink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-319A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NET/COMM Services, Corp. ("NET/COMM Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NET/COMM Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NET/COMM Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NET/COMM Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-321A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. ("TelePlus" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelePlus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TelePlus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-326A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Pacific Telecom Services, Inc. ("Pacific Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pacific Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pacific Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pacific Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-32A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and PR Wireless, Inc. d/b/a OPEN Mobile ("PR Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against PR Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PR Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and PR Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-33A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and PiperTel Communications, LLC ("PiperTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against PiperTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PiperTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and PiperTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-344A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Network Services Solutions, LLC ("Network Services Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Network Services Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Network Services Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Network Services Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-345A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Internet & Telephone, LLC ("Internet & Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Internet & Telephone, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Internet & Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Internet & Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-34A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NetSpan Corporation d/b/a Foremost Telecommunications ("NetSpan Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NetSpan Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NetSpan Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NetSpan Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-361A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and China Unicom (Americas) Operations Ltd. Corporation ("China Unicom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against China Unicom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding China Unicom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and China Unicom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-365A1.html
  • 25, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot ("Think 12") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois providing resold interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-36A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North County Communications Corp. ("NCCC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North County Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NCCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-371A1.html
  • Appendix I ) ) OMNIBUS NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: February 25, 2011 Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I ("the Companies"), have apparently willfully and repeatedly violated (1) section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") rules by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, and (2) an Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") order by failing to provide certain information regarding their CPNI filings. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding both apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-37A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Association Administrators, Inc. ("Association Administrators" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Association Administrators for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Association Administrators' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Association Administrators have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-38A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ring Connection, Inc. ("Ring Connection" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ring Connection for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ring Connection's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ring Connection have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-418A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Consultants, Inc. ("TCI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-421A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nationwide Telecom, Inc. ("Nationwide Telecom") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Nationwide Telecom is a telecommunications carrier located in West Hills, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Nationwide Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-422A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Calmtel USA, Inc. ("Calmtel USA") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Calmtel USA is a telecommunications carrier located in Los Angeles, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Calmtel USA is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-423A1.html
  • Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Diamond Phone Card, Inc. ("Diamond Phone") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Diamond Phone is a telecommunications carrier located in Elmhurst, New York providing prepaid phone card services. As a telecommunications carrier, Diamond Phone is subject to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-424A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against USA Teleport, Inc. ("USA Teleport") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. USA Teleport is a telecommunications carrier located in North Miami Beach, Florida providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USA Teleport is subject to the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-487A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Integrated Telemanagement Services, Inc. d/b/a OMNICOM ("Integrated Telemanagement" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Integrated Telemanagement for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Integrated Telemanagement's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Integrated Telemanagement have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-545A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele Circuit Network Corporation ("Tele Circuit" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele Circuit for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Circuit's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele Circuit have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-546A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westgate Communications, LLC d/b/a WeavTel ("Westgate Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westgate Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westgate Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westgate Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-556A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ZTG, Inc. ("ZTG" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ZTG for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ZTG's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ZTG have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-587A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-69A1.html
  • and United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One ("Call One" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call One's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Call One have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-70A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. ("Telestar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telestar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telestar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-71A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Latino Communications Corp. ("Latino Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Latino Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Latino Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Latino Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-72A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Team Electronics, Inc. ("Team Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Team Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Team Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Team Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-73A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Neutral Tandem, Inc. ("Neutral" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Neutral Tandem for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Neutral's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Neutral have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-742A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-743A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-802A1.html
  • the Commission's rules, we deny a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 8, 2011, by USA Teleport, Inc. ("USAT"). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for USTA's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; paragraphs 51 and 53 of the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. II. Background 2. USAT is a telecommunications carrier, located in North Miami Beach, Florida, that provides interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USAT is subject to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-813A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Metronet Telecom, Inc. ("Metronet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Metronet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metronet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Metronet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-994A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-999A1.html
  • June 6, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against 88 Telecom Corporation ("88 Telecom"). 88 Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. 88 Telecom is a prepaid calling card telecommunications carrier located in San Francisco, California. As a telecommunications carrier, 88 Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-267A1.html
  • and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning various regulatory fee and reporting obligations as well as required contributions to the Universal Service Fund, the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, and the North American Numbering Plan and Local Number Portability administration. The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation by the Bureau into possible violations of Section 222 of the Act, Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order regarding BSCI's customer proprietary network information obligations. 2. A copy of the Consent Decree negotiated by the Bureau and BSCI is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-628A1.html
  • between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Ztar Mobile, Inc. (Ztar). The Consent Decree resolves and terminates the Bureau's investigations into Ztar's compliance with Section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning the deployment of digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets and with Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the EPIC CPNI Order, concerning the filing of an annual Customer Proprietary Network Information certification. 2. The Bureau and Ztar have negotiated the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-06-223A1.html
  • you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** DA 06-223 Released: January 30, 2006 Enforcement Bureau Directs All Telecommunications Carriers to Submit CPNI Compliance Certifications In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) directs all telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless carriers, to submit a compliance certificate to the Commission as required by section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules.1 Carrier certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with the rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),2 requires that telecommunications carriers
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-06-258A1.html
  • about the safeguards employed by the companies handling their private information and contacted the Bureau seeking information about the CPNI compliance certifications. Opening a new docket will enable the public to more easily access these carrier certificates. Carrier compliance certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Any CPNI compliance certifications already filed electronically with the Commission will be moved to the new docket by Commission staff. Carriers do not need to re-file their certifications. Filing Procedures Carriers' reports, to be filed on or before February
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-08-171A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 08-171 January 29, 2008 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications ("CPNI Certifications") pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed no later than March 1, 2008, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On April
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-09-240A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 09-240 February 13, 2009 Enforcement Bureau Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) again reminds all companies subject to its CPNI rules of their obligation to file their CPNI Certification no later than March 1, 2009. Certifications must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided below. Background. On April 2, 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-09-9A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 09-9 January 7, 2009 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (CPNI Certifications) pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed annually between January 1 and March 1, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-10-91A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-159A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-12-170A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/Welcome.html
  • 05-19-2010 [35]States that Have Certified that They Regulate Pole Attachments 01-15-2010 [36]Enforcement Bureau Takes Action to Enhance Access to Digital Wireless Service for Individuals with Hearing Disabilities 01-15-2010 [37]Annual CPNI Certicifations Due March 1, 2010 02-13-2009 [38]EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 01-07-2009 [39]EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 03-21-2008 [40]Corrected List of States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments - WC Docket No. 07-245 01-29-2008 [41]EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e) 09-07-2006 [42]FCC Announces Filing Procedures
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/TPI.html
  • information (CPNI) issues 04-28-2009 $4,000 Forfeiture against [389]1st United Tel-Com, Inc. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 02-24-2009 $4,000 forfeiture proposed against [390]Leflore Communications, Inc. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 02-13-2009 [391]Public Notice EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 01-07-2009 [392]Public Notice EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 02-19-2008 $100,000 Consent Decree with [393]CTC Communications Corp. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 01-29-2008 [394]Public Notice - EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e) 11-29-2007 $100,000 Forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/eabydate.html
  • residential or cellular telephone lines 02-13-2009 [653]Citation issued to Bank Card POS LLC for apparent violation of the TCPA and Commission's rules regarding delivering prerecorded unsolicited advertisements to residential or cellular telephone lines 02-13-2009 [654]Public Notice EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 02-13-2009 $4,500 Forfeiture against [655]Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. concerning violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Unsolicited Junk Faxes) 02-12-2009 [656]Citation issued to Lowe's Companies, Inc. for apparent violation of the TCPA and Commission's rules regarding delivering prerecorded unsolicited advertisements to residential or cellular telephone lines 02-12-2009 [657]Citation issued to Proficient Marketing LLC for apparent violation of the TCPA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99223.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99223.txt
  • Background 116.In the CPNI Order, the Commission concluded that "all telecommunications carriers must establish effective safeguards to protect against unauthorized access to CPNI by their employees or agents, or by unaffiliated third parties."328 To this end, we required carriers to develop and implement software systems that "flag" customer service records in connection with Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-223 329 Section 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules states that "Telecommunications carriers must develop and implement software that indicates within the first few lines of the first screen of a customer's service record the CPNI approval status and reference the customer's existing service subscription." 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(a). See CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8198, ¶ 198. 330 Section 64.2009(c) of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd080130.html
  • * * * * * ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED JANUARY 29, 2008, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 19: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Released: 01/29/2008. ENFORCEMENT BUREAU PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON FILING OF ANNUAL CPNI CERTIFICATIONS. (DA No. 08-171). (Dkt No 06-36) Provided guidance on the filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e). EB. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau [75]DA-08-171A1.doc [76]DA-08-171A1.pdf [77]DA-08-171A1.txt Released: 01/29/2008. COMMENT SOUGHT ON A PETITION BY USCOC OF GREATER MISSOURI, LLC D/B/A U.S. CELLULAR FOR COMMISSION AGREEMENT IN REDEFINING THE SERVICE AREAS OF RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANIES IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI. (DA No. 08-181). (Dkt No 96-45). Comments Due: 02/28/2008. Reply Comments Due: 03/14/2008. WCB. Contact: Jennifer Prime at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd090217.html
  • FCC ACTING CHAIRMAN MICHAEL J. COPPS ON U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ON CONSUMER PRIVACY. STMT. News Media Contact: David Fiske 202-418-0513 OCH [24]DOC-288491A1.doc [25]DOC-288491A1.pdf [26]DOC-288491A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Released: 02/13/2009. ENFORCEMENT BUREAU REMINDS CARRIERS OF MARCH 1 DEADLINE AND PROVIDES FURTHER GUIDANCE ON FILING OF ANNUAL CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION (CPNI) CERTIFICATIONS UNDER 47 CFR 64.2009(E). (DA No. 09-240). EB. Contact: Please contact Edward Hayes at (202) 418-7994, Robert Somers at (202) 418-1483, Donna Cyrus at (202) 418-7325, Kim Wild at (202) 418-1324, or Marcy Greene at (202) 418-2410 [27]DA-09-240A1.doc [28]DA-09-240A1.pdf [29]DA-09-240A1.txt Released: 02/13/2009. FCC RELEASES LISTS OF TV STATIONS' RESPONSES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ANALOG TERMINATION ON FEBRUARY 17, 2009. (DA No. 09-245). MB. Action by:
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-122A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission.1 The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that DataFind.org may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 14, 2005, your counsel requested via email additional time, until December 23, 2005, to respond to the questions contained in the subpoena. To date, we have not received any
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-124A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission.1 The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that LocateCell.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 16, 2005, your counsel provided a partial response to several of the questions contained in the subpoena and indicated that you would provide additional responses to other questions the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1430A1.html
  • Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that your company may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any response to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1431A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via hand-delivery. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Onlinepi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. You requested two extensions of time in which to respond, and we granted both requests, extending the response date to February 21, 2006. To date, we have not received any
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1433A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Matecheckpi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any responses to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1641A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: August 17, 2006 Released: August 18, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau and Alltel Corporation ("Alltel"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against Alltel for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Enforcement Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be served by adopting
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-220A1.html
  • Alltel Corporation ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-058 ) Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632170002 Forfeiture ) FRN: 0012757787 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1.In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Alltel Corporation (``Alltel'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules1 by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-221A1.html
  • AT&T Inc. ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-059 ) Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632170003 Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004305124 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1.In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that AT&T Inc. (``AT&T'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules1 by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-916A1.html
  • 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, and in particular the serious consequences that may flow from inadequate concern for and protection of CPNI, we propose a monetary forfeiture of $100,000 against Cbeyond for its apparent failure to comply with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the CPNI Order. II. BACKGROUND 2. Based on concerns regarding the apparent availability to third parties of sensitive, personal subscriber information the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") has been investigating the adequacy of procedures implemented by telecommunications carriers to ensure confidentiality of their subscribers' CPNI. For example, companies known as "data brokers" have advertised the availability
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-100A1.html
  • compliance with section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S 222, and sections 64.2001-2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 64.2001-2009. The Consent Decree also terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against AT&T for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009(e). 2. The Commission and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation and the NAL. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-104A1.html
  • the customer-carrier relationship. See 47 U.S.C. S 222; 47 C.F.R. S 64.2003(d). 47 U.S.C. S 222. This section provides that: "Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunications carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier." See also 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009 et seq., the Commission's rules implementing section 222 of the Act. According to a petition for rulemaking filed with the Commission regarding protection of CPNI, some data brokers have taken advantage of carriers' inadequate security standards to gain access to CPNI under false pretenses, such as by posing as the customer and then offering the records for sale on the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1407A1.html
  • Mobile, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170011 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0014731822 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd" or "Amp'd Mobile") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the subpart governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1408A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that KLM Telephone Company, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively "KLM"), apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he had personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1409A1.html
  • No. EB-06-TC-4261 Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170035 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN:0001544790 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation, ("Easterbrooke Cellular") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1412A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-4483 CTC Communications Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0037 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0005013669 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that CTC Communications Corporation ("CTC") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1413A1.html
  • Telephone Company, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0038 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN 0004380200 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. ("Shoreham") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its CPNI compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules regarding the use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1414A1.html
  • No. EB-06-TC-4496 PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170055 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004272373 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1415A1.html
  • Rural Telephone Co. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170023 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004337218 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. ("Oneida") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its annual certification explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1417A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1419A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1420A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1421A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1422A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1423A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2300A1.html
  • of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On January 27, 2007, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Burke's Garden directing Burke's Garden to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Burke's Garden for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Burke's Garden filed a response to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3281A1.html
  • Mechanicsville Telephone Company ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0041 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003748340 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville Telephone") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an annual certificate signed by a corporate officer stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3291A1.html
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200732170017 d/b/a A-1 Communications ) FRN: 0003765740 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a/ A-1 Communications ("Audio-Video" ) apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3581A1.html
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry ("LOIs") to several carriers, including Connect, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Connect did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to Connect for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On April 27, 2007, Connect submitted several documents in response to the NAL, including a letter from its President, Byron T. Young, which explains, among
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3582A1.html
  • ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170054 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0013394028 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone ("Connect") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3583A1.html
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry ("LOIs") to several carriers, including PhoneCo, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. PhoneCo did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to PhoneCo for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On June 27, 2007, PhoneCo submitted a response to the NAL, which explains the Company's reasons for failing to respond to the LOI. PhoneCo states
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3584A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-4006 Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0076 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003743119 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ("CTI") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3734A1.html
  • NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0009 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0007704166 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC ("River City Wireless") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3812A1.html
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and AT&T Inc. ("AT&T"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") regarding AT&T Corp.'s compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222(c)(1), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a). 2. The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4016A1.html
  • is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. Liberty Phones, an Arkansas-based company authorized to provide local and interexchange telecommunications services since 2002, provides prepaid residential and small business telephone service. On February 6, 2006, Liberty Phones submitted to the Bureau a Certificate of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") filing pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Upon checking, Bureau staff learned there was no record of Liberty Phones registering with the Commission or submitting Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (FCC Form 499) to the Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC"), or making associated payments to the requisite federal regulatory programs. 3. On May 31, 2007, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Liberty
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4090A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") adopts the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and Cbeyond Communications, Inc. ("Cbeyond"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against Cbeyond for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Act") and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Consent decree terminates an investigation into Cbeyond's compliance with section 64.2007(a)(3) of the Commission's rules regarding customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. The Bureau and Cbeyond have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. Based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4776A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-3543 Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20083217 0003 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004938064 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 29, 2007 Released: November 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ("Dialaround") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1920A1.html
  • based on the caller's location. E911 also provides the call taker with the caller's call back number ... and in many cases, location information...." Id. at 10251 P:13 (footnotes omitted). See id. at 10246 n.2 (citing examples of VoIP customers futilely attempting to call 911 during emergency situations). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.20000 - 1.20008. See id. S:S: 64.2001 - 64.2009. See id. S:S: 64.601 - 64.608. See id. S:S: 6.1 - 6.23 and S:S: 7.1 - 7.23. See id. S:S: 52.20 - 52.33 See id. S: 54.706. See id. S: 64.604. See id. S: 52.17. See id. S: 52.32. See id. S: 64.1195. Id. S:S: 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-404A1.html
  • into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission") and CTC Communications Corp. ("CTC"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against CTC for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTC have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-457A1.html
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On December 5, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Manning directing Manning to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Manning for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Manning filed responses to the NAL on May
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-458A1.html
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On December 12, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Habla directing Habla to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Habla for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. The NAL was sent by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1581A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Wilson Communication Company, Inc. ("Wilson" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Wilson for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Wilson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Wilson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1583A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and WTC Communications, Inc. ("WTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against WTC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and WTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1586A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clearcom, Inc. ("Clearcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clearcom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clearcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clearcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1587A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Supply, Inc. ("TSI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telecom Supply, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TSI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1590A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CenCom, Inc. ("CenCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CenCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CenCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CenCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1591A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComSouth Telenet, Inc. ("ComSouth" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSouth Telenet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1592A1.html
  • 0005013699 ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. ("@Communications") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On September 2, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to @Communications asking @Communications whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1593A1.html
  • ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 29, 2008, PriorityOne filed a certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules with the Commission's Secretary. In reviewing the certifications filed,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1599A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. ("ComSouth" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1600A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComTech Solutions, LLC ("ComTech" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComTech Solutions, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComTech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1601A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. ("Nebraska" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nebraska's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nebraska have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1602A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Stanton Long Distance, LLC ("Stanton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Stanton Long Distance, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Stanton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Stanton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1604A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC ("NLD" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NLD's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NLD have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1606A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ligtel Communications, Inc. ("Ligtel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ligtel Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ligtel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ligtel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1607A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Texas Long Distance Company ("Southwest" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Texas Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Southwest have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1609A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. ("TCB" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCB's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TCB have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1610A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and RTC Communications Corp. ("RTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RTC Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1611A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Smithville Telecom, Inc. ("Smithville" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Smithville Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Smithville's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Smithville have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1612A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ASTAC Long Distance ("ASTAC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ASTAC Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ASTAC Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ASTAC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1613A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. ("Family Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Family Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Family Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1614A1.html
  • ) ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 6, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville ("Naperville") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Naperville a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1615A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 5, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. ("Sweetser") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Sweetser a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1616A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clay County Communications, LLC ("Clay County" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clay County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clay County's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clay County have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1617A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. ("Giles-Craig" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Giles-Craig's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Giles-Craig have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1618A1.html
  • ) ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. ("TCO Network") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On September 5, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to TCO Network asking TCO Network whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1619A1.html
  • July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. ("Hinton") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Hinton a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1620A1.html
  • ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1621A1.html
  • ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. ("Momentum") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Momentum a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1627A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Evertek, Inc. ("Evertek" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Evertek, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Evertek's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Evertek have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1628A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Topsham Communications, LLC ("Topsham" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Topsham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Topsham's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Topsham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1632A1.html
  • Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications ("B & B Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B & B Communications Network, Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & B Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B & B Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1633A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GBT Communications, Inc. ("GBT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GBT Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GBT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GBT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1634A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. ("Cedar-Wapsie" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cedar-Wapsie's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cedar-Wapsie have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1635A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NMRSA6-III Partnership ("NMRSA6-III" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NMRSA6-III Partnership for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NMRSA6-III's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NMRSA6-III have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1636A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. ("SOTI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SOTI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and SOTI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1637A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Peetz Communications, LLC ("Peetz" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Peetz Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Peetz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Peetz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1638A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Northeast Competitive Access Provider ("NCAP" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Northeast Competitive Access Provider for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCAP's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NCAP have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1639A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Carr Communications, Inc. ("Carr" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Carr Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carr's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Carr have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1640A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. ("Ogden" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ogden's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ogden have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1641A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westphalia Communications, Inc. ("Westphalia" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westphalia Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westphalia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westphalia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1642A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and SpringCom, Inc. ("SpringCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against SpringCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SpringCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and SpringCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-16A1.html
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and AT&T, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates (collectively "AT&T" or "the AT&T Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Bureau against the AT&T Companies for possible violation of section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(3)(ii), 64.2008(d)(3)(v) and 64.2009(a) of the Federal Communication Commission's ("Commission") rules relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and sections 201(b) and 254 of the Act, and sections 54.712(a), 69.131 and 69.158 of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. 2. The Bureau and the AT&T Companies have negotiated the terms of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1709A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fort Mojave Television, Inc. ("Fort Mojave" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fort Mojave Television, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fort Mojave's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fort Mojave have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1742A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and AP&T Wireless, Inc. ("AP&T" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against AP&T Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AP&T's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and AP&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1743A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Falcon1, Inc. ("Falcon1" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Falcon1 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Falcon1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Falcon1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1744A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TSC Communications, Inc. ("TSC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TSC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TSC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1884A1.html
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad, Inc. ("Cellular Abroad"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Cellular Abroad a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Cellular Abroad's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Cellular Abroad, we agree with Cellular Abroad that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Cellular Abroad is not
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1885A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The City of Daytona Beach ("Daytona Beach"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Daytona Beach a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Daytona Beach's apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Daytona Beach, we agree with Daytona Beach that Daytona Beach was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due. Accordingly,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1886A1.html
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC ("Nebraska Supercomm"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Nebraska Supercomm a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Nebraska Supercomm's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon new information provided by Nebraska Supercomm, we agree with Nebraska Supercomm that it did not have any telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1888A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. ("Pilgrim"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Pilgrim a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Pilgrim's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Pilgrim, we agree with Pilgrim that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. During the 2007 calendar year, Pilgrim
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1889A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. ("Visionary"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Visionary a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Visionary's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Visionary, we agree with Visionary that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Visionary is not a telecommunications carrier,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1891A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc ("Zicore"). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Zicore a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Zicore's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Zicore, we agree with Zicore that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1926A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc ("Isan"). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Isan a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Isan's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Isan, we agree with Isan that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1928A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC ("Plains"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Plains a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Plains' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Plains, we agree with Plains that it had timely filed its CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1929A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound ("Orange"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Orange a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Orange's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Orange, we agree with Orange that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1930A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. ("Freedom"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Freedom's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Freedom, we agree with Freedom that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1931A1.html
  • this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company ("Allendale"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Allendale a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Allendale's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Allendale, we agree with Allendale that it had timely filed its annual CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1932A1.html
  • In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated ("Worldwide Marketing"). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Worldwide Marketing a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Worldwide Marketing's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Worldwide Marketing, we agree with Worldwide Marketing that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1980A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance ("Clarks"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Clarks a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Clarks' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Clarks, we agree with Clarks that it was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due because it ceased offering
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-256A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Big Telephone, Inc. ("Big Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Big Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-257A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. ("Ben Lomand Rural") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand Rural is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-258A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ben Lomand Communications, LLC ("Ben Lomand") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-259A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Bellvoz Corp. ("Bellvoz" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bellvoz is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-260A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Bee Line Cable ("Bee Line" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bee Line is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-261A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc.("Atlantic" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Atlantic is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-264A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., ("American Fiber" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that American Fiber is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-265A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Action Communications, Inc. ("Action" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Action is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-267A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that 800 Response Information Services LLC ("800 Response" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that 800 Response is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-269A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. ("Buckeye" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Buckeye is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-270A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Cherokee Telephone Company ("Cherokee" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cherokee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-271A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that China Telecom (Americas) Corporation ("China Telecom" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that China Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-276A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom ("Communications Venture") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Communications Venture is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-277A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications ("Aquis" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Aquis is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-278A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Consolidated Telephone Company ("Consolidated Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Consolidated Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-280A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Clear World Communications Corporation ("Clear World" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clear World is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-282A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. ("D.G.A." or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that D.G.A. is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-290A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Isan Telecom, Inc. ("Isan" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Isan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-293A1.html
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC ("Tennessee" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Tennessee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-294A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging ("Kitchen Productions" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Kitchen Productions is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-296A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. ("KanOkla Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that KanOkla Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-297A1.html
  • 0017294992 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Latino Telecom, Inc. ("Latino Telecom") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Latino Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-298A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Threshold Communications, Inc. ("Threshold" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Threshold is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-299A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Leflore Communications, Inc. ("Leflore" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Leflore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-302A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. ("Legacy Long Distance" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Legacy Long Distance is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-303A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. ("M & L Enterprises") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that M & L Enterprises is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-305A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC ("Liberty" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Liberty is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-306A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One ("Call One") or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Call One is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-308A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that McClure Telephone Company ("McClure Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that McClure Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-309A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that VDL, Inc. d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers ("VDL" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that VDL is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-310A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe ("Broadstripe" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Broadstripe is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-312A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Volunteer First Services, LLC ("Volunteer") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Volunteer is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-315A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Commnet Wireless, LLC ("Commnet" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Commnet is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-316A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Momentum Telecom, Inc. ("Momentum" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Momentum is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-317A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated ("Worldwide Marketing" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Worldwide Marketing is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-318A1.html
  • FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. ("Angel Communications" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Angel Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-321A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Data Radio Management Company, Inc. ("Data Radio Management" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Data Radio Management is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-322A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find the Scott C. MacIntyre ("MacIntyre" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that MacIntyre is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-323A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Edward Adams Associates, Inc. ("Edward Adams Associates" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Edward Adams Associates is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-324A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Zicore Services, Inc. ("Zicore" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Zicore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-327A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that SI2Way, Inc. ("SI2Way" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SI2Way is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-328A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Wayne Frank ("Frank" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Frank is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-331A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that James T. Hopper ("Hopper" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hopper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-332A1.html
  • 0005027701 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Arthur N. Sherman ("Sherman") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sherman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-333A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. ("Telebeeper" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telebeeper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-334A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find That Clifford E. Bade ("Clifford Bade" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clifford Bade is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-335A1.html
  • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company ("National Brands" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that National Brands is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-337A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Netcarrier Telecom, Inc.("Netcarrier" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Netcarrier is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-338A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Network Innovations, Inc. ("Network Innovations" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Network Innovations is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-340A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Nunn Telephone Company ("Nunn" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Nunn is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-341A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that O. Richard Knutson ("O.R. Knutson" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that O.R. Knutson is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-342A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that One Touch India LLC ("One Touch") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that One Touch is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-344A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom("Phillips County" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Phillips County is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-347A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Prime Time Ventures ("Prime Time Ventures" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Prime Time Ventures is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-348A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that PriorityOne is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-349A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that ProCom LMR, Inc. ("ProCom" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ProCom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-350A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find the Protek Leasing Corp. ("Protek" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Protek is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-352A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that DAR Communications Corporation ("DAR" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that DAR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-357A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. ("Santa Rosa" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-358A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. ("Santa Rosa" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-359A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. ("Santel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-360A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Securetel Network Inc. ("Securetel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Securetel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-362A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. ("Shreveport" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Shreveport is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-367A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Dixville Telephone Company ("Dixville Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Dixville Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-370A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that E & F Telecom, Inc. ("E & F Telecom") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that E & F Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-371A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, ("Eastern Colorado" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Eastern Colorado is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-372A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that EGIX, Inc. ("EGIX" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that EGIX is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-373A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that South Central Wireless, Inc, dba SCTelcom ("SCTelcom") or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SCTelcom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-374A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. ("Specialized Mobile Radio" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Specialized Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-378A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that BKT Telecom Corp. ("BKT" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that BKT is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-380A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies ("First Mile") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that First Mile is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-382A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Gabriel Wireless, LLC ("Gabriel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Gabriel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-383A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that T2 Communications, LLC ("T2 Communications" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that T2 Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-384A1.html
  • 0014872337 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ganoco, Inc. ("Ganoco" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ganoco is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-385A1.html
  • FRN: 0014225684 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Telchin Corporation ("Telchin") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telchin is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-386A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that General Mobile Radio Service, Inc. ("General Mobile Radio" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that General Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-391A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. ("Hartman" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hartman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-394A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Highland Communications, LLC ("Highland" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Highland is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-401A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC ("TeleSpan" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that TeleSpan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-426A1.html
  • Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1052A1.html
  • we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC ("Freedom Communications"). On February 26, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom Communications a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Freedom Communications' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Freedom Communications, we agree with Freedom Communications that it had submitted, by mail, a complete CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year; although several
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1118A1.html
  • their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation regarding Verizon's compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222(c)(1), and section 64.2007 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2007. II. BACKGROUND 2. On January 27, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, Verizon filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its opt-out mechanism for obtaining customers' approval for use of their customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). The notice stated that, on January 16, 2009, Verizon discovered that the total number of opt-out customers compiled by its vendor was greater than the number in its database by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1129A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BBG Communications, Inc. ("BBG Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BBG Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BBG Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BBG Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1130A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CMC Telecom, Inc. ("CMC Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CMC Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMC Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CMC Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1131A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and DialToneServices, L.P. ("DialToneServices" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against DialToneServices for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DialToneServices' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DialToneServices have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1132A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Faircall Corporation d/b/a 1-800 Faircall ("Faircall Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Faircall Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Faircall Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Faircall Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1133A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. ("GLC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GLC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GLC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1134A1.html
  • or "Commission") and Impact Network Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Impact Long Distance ("Impact Network Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Impact Network Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Impact Network Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Impact Network Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1135A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Northwest Telephone, Inc. ("NWT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Northwest Telephone, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NWT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NWT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1136A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NovoLink Communications, Inc. ("NovoLink Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NovoLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NovoLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NovoLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1138A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Opcom, Inc. d/b/a WCS Telecom ("Opcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Opcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Opcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Opcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1140A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. ("Orlando" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Orlando's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Orlando have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1141A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Quasar Communications Corporation ("Quasar Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Quasar Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quasar Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Quasar Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1142A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele Uno, Inc. ("Tele Uno" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele Uno for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Uno's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele Uno have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1182A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Arkadin, Inc. ("Arkadin" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Arkadin for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Arkadin's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Arkadin have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1183A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clarksville Mutual Tel. Co. d/b/a Clarksville Mutual Telephone Company ("Clarksville Mutual" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clarksville Mutual for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clarksville Mutual's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clarksville Mutual have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1184A1.html
  • E. Ritter Telephone Company, and Tri-County Tel. Co., Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Telephone Co., Inc. (collectively, "Ritter" or "Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ritter for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ritter's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ritter have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1185A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lamar County Cellular, Inc. ("Lamar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lamar County Cellular, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lamar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lamar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1186A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Michigan Access, Inc. ("Michigan Access" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Michigan Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Michigan Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Michigan Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1187A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Reinbeck Municipal Telecommunications Utility ("Reinbeck Municipal" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Reinbeck Municipal for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reinbeck Municipal's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Reinbeck Municipal have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1188A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and US Telesis, Inc. ("US Telesis" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against US Telesis for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding US Telesis' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and US Telesis have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1250A1.html
  • October 5, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and Global Information Technologies ("GIT"). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bureau against GIT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's ("Commission") rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and, among other things, section 254 of the Act and section 54.712(a) of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. 2. The Bureau and GIT have negotiated the terms of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1298A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BroadRiver Communication Corporation ("BroadRiver" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BroadRiver Communication Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BroadRiver's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BroadRiver have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1299A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and B W Telcom Long Distance ("B W Telcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B W Telcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B W Telcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B W Telcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1300A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Comteck of Indiana, Inc. ("Comteck of Indiana" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Comteck of Indiana for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Comteck of Indiana's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Comteck of Indiana have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1301A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. ("Communications 1" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications 1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Communications 1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1302A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. ("Craw-Kan" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Craw-Kan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Craw-Kan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1303A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and DTC Cable, Inc. ("DTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against DTC Cable, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1304A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and FiberComm, L.C. ("FiberComm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against FiberComm, L.C. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FiberComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and FiberComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1305A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Glenwood Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Glenwood Long Distance ("Glenwood" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Glenwood for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Glenwood's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Glenwood have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1306A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. ("Hamilton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc.'s apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Hamilton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1307A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Home Long Distance, Inc. ("Home Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Home Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Home Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Home Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1308A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the Omnibus NAL, each
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1326A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GlobalNova, Inc. ("GlobalNova" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GlobalNova for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalNova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GlobalNova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1327A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Horizon Technology ("Horizon" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Horizon Technology for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Horizon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Horizon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1328A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and KeyArt Communications, Inc. ("KeyArt" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KeyArt Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KeyArt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KeyArt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1329A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and MTC Communications, Inc. ("MTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against MTC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding MTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and MTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1330A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NNTC Wireless, LLC ("NNTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NNTC Wireless, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NNTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NNTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1331A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nunn Communications, LLC ("Nunn Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nunn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nunn Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nunn Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1332A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Phillips County Communications, LLC ("Phillips" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Phillips County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Phillips's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Phillips have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1333A1.html
  • "Commission") and Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance ("Pioneer" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pioneer's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pioneer have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1334A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Roggen Telephone Enterprises, Inc. ("RTE" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RTE for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RTE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1335A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Prairie Networks, LLC ("Prairie Networks" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Prairie Networks, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Prairie Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Prairie Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1336A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company ("Toledo" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toledo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Toledo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1337A1.html
  • & TV, Inc. ("Vernon Communications" or "Company"). Vernon Communications was formerly a subsidiary of Mutual Telephone Company. The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Vernon Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Vernon Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mutual Telephone Company, on behalf of Vernon Communications, have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1338A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and WUE, Inc. ("WUE" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against WUE, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WUE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and WUE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1339A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Andina Corporation ("Andina Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Andina Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Andina Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Andina Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1340A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Answer Fort Smith, Inc. ("Answer Fort Smith" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Answer Fort Smith for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answer Fort Smith's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Answer Fort Smith have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1367A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Korea Telecom America, Inc. ("Korea Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Korea Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Korea Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Korea Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1370A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CMOLS, LLC ("CMOLS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CMOLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMOLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CMOLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1371A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Sound of Tri-State ("Tri-State" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tri-State for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-State's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tri-State have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1372A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Bingo Consulting, LLC ("Bingo" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bingo for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bingo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bingo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1374A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Paging and Telemessaging, Inc. ("Advanced Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1375A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Airwaves Communications, Inc. ("Airwaves Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Airwaves Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Airwaves Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Airwaves Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1376A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Axxis Communications, Inc., ("Axxis Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Axxis Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Axxis Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Axxis Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1444A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ("Dialaround"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dialaround for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Dialaround's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dialaround have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1452A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC ("River City Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against River City Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding River City Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and River City Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1472A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Western Communications Services, Inc. ("Western Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Western Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Western Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Western Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1473A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westside Paging, Inc. d/b/a Westside Communications ("Westside Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westside Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westside Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westside Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1474A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ray's Electronics, Inc. ("Ray's Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ray's Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ray's Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ray's Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1475A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Page Plus, Inc. ("Page Plus" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Page Plus for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Page Plus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Page Plus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1476A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobile Radio Communications, Inc. d/b/a MobilFone ("Mobile Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobile Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobile Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1477A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Huffman Communications ("Huffman" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Huffman for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huffman's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Huffman have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1478A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Kotana Communications, Inc. ("Kotana Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Kotana Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kotana Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Kotana Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1479A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Teleplex, Inc. d/b/a Alert Communications ("Teleplex" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Teleplex for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teleplex's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Teleplex have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1480A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Matthews Answering Service, Inc. ("Matthews Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Matthews Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Matthews Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Matthews Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1481A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lancaster Radio Paging, Inc. d/b/a Access Telecommunications Network ("Lancaster Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lancaster Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lancaster Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lancaster Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1482A1.html
  • or "Commission") and UIDC Telecom Division d/b/a Rio Networks f/k/a Rio Communications, Inc. ("Rio Networks" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Rio Networks for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Rio Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Rio Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1484A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Satellite Services, Inc. ("International Satellite Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Satellite Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Satellite Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Satellite Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1485A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westel, Inc. ("Westel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1486A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and eKit.com, Inc. ("eKit.com" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against eKit.com for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding eKit.com's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and eKit.com have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1487A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CresComm Services, Inc. d/b/a Crescent Communications Co. ("CresComm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CresComm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CresComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CresComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1488A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Alpha Message Center, Inc. ("Alpha Message" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alpha Message for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alpha Message's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Alpha Message have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1489A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clark Communications, Inc. ("Clark Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clark Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clark Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clark Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1490A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Bryan 800 Communications, Inc. ("Bryan 800" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bryan 800 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bryan 800's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bryan 800 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1491A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cottonwood Holdings Corporation d/b/a Beep West Radio Paging ("Cottonwood Holdings" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cottonwood Holdings for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cottonwood Holdings' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cottonwood Holdings have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1499A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fones West Digital Systems, Inc. d/b/a Lynx Wireless ("Fones West" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fones West for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fones West's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fones West have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1500A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Janaslani Enterprises, LLC ("Janaslani" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Janaslani Enterprises, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Janaslani's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Janaslani have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1501A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fluent Inc. ("Fluent" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fluent for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fluent's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fluent have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1502A1.html
  • or "Commission") and The Money Store, LP d/b/a The Money Box ("The Money Store" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against The Money Store for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Money Store's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and The Money Store have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1503A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and The Contact Network, Inc. d/b/a InLine ("The Contact Network" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against The Contact Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Contact Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and The Contact Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1504A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Total Communication Systems, Inc. ("Total Communication Systems" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Total Communication Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Total Communication Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Total Communication Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1505A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Basin Communications Systems, Inc. ("Basin Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Basin Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Basin Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Basin Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1506A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telstar Communications, Inc. ("Telstar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telstar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telstar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telstar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1507A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Terral Telephone Company, Inc. ("Terral Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Terral Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Terral Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Terral Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1508A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Signal Telecommunications, Inc. ("Signal Telecommunications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Signal Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Signal Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Signal Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1524A1.html
  • Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively "KLM"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KLM for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding KLM's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KLM have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1526A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ninetel, Inc. ("Ninetel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ninetel, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ninetel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ninetel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1527A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Oratel, Inc. ("Oratel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Oratel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Oratel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Oratel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1528A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ONS-Telecom, LLC ("ONS-Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ONS-Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ONS-Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ONS-Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1530A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and David L. English d/b/a Mobile Communications Services ("David L. English" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against David L. English for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding David L. English's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and David L. English have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1531A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Communications Specialists, Inc. ("Communications Specialist" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Communications Specialist for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications Specialists' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Communications Specialists have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1532A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Flower City Paging, Inc. ("Flower City" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Flower City Paging, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Flower City's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Flower City have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1533A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and C & C Communications ("C & C" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against C & C for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding C & C's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and C & C have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1534A1.html
  • B & C Mobile Communications, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Mobile ("B & C Mobile" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B & C Mobile for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & C Mobile's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B & C Mobile have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1535A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Relay Communications Corporation ("Relay Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Relay Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Relay Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Relay Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1536A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Critical Alert Systems, LLC, on behalf of Aroostook Paging, Inc. ("Aroostook" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Aroostook for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Aroostook's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Aroostook have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1568A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lloyd Hoff Holding Corporation d/b/a Black Bear Paging ("Lloyd Hoff" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lloyd Hoff for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lloyd Hoff's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lloyd Hoff have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1569A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lucky Communications, Inc. ("Lucky Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lucky Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lucky Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lucky Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1570A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Quick-Tel, Inc. ("Quick-Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Quick-Tel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quick-Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Quick-Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1571A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NexGen Integrated Communications, L.L.C. ("NexGen Integrated Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NexGen Integrated Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NexGen Integrated Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NexGen Integrated Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1572A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Iscom, Inc. ("Iscom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Iscom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Iscom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Iscom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1573A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Transcard, LLC f/k/a Innovative Processing Solutions, LLC ("Innovative Processing" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Innovative Processing for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Innovative Processing's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Innovative Processing have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1576A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GlobalPhone Corp. ("GlobalPhone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GlobalPhone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalPhone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GlobalPhone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1577A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GeoNet Communications Group, Inc. ("GeoNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GeoNet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GeoNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GeoNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1578A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Gateway Wireless Services, L.C. ("Gateway Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Gateway Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Gateway Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Gateway Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1580A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and First Communications, Inc. ("First Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against First Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding First Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and First Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1581A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ezequiel Guido d/b/a E Marketing ("Ezequiel Guido" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ezequiel Guido for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ezequiel Guido's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ezequiel Guido have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1582A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Circle Telephone Company ("Circle Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Circle Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Circle Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Circle Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1583A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Carolina Mobile Communications, Ltd. ("Carolina" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Carolina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carolina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Carolina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1584A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Allcom Communications, Inc. ("Allcom Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Allcom Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Allcom Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Allcom Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1663A1.html
  • New Talk, Inc. (formerly known as Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get a Phone) (collectively "New Talk"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Talk for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding New Talk's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Talk have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1679A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and World Communications, Inc. ("World Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against World Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and World Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1680A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Global Connect Telecommunications, Inc. ("Global Connect" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Global Connect for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Connect's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Global Connect have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1681A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Courtesy Communications, Inc. ("Courtesy Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Courtesy Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Courtesy Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Courtesy Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1682A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and VIP Communications, Inc. ("VIP Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against VIP Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding VIP Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and VIP Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1683A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Telnet, Inc. ("International Telnet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Telnet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Telnet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Telnet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1684A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Range Corporation d/b/a Range Telecommunications ("Range Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Range Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Range Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Range Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1685A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Madera Radio Dispatch, Inc. ("Madera Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Madera Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Madera Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Madera Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1686A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Suncoast Technology, Inc. ("Suncoast" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Suncoast Technology, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Suncoast's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Suncoast have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1687A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tri-Caps, Inc. ("Tri-Caps" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tri-Caps for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-Caps' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tri-Caps have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1688A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TTI Comm Corp. ("TTI Comm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TTI Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TTI Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TTI Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1761A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications ("Audio-Video"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Audio-Video for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Audio-Video's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Audio-Video have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1770A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Teton Communications, Inc. ("Teton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Teton for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Teton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1771A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma ("Mobile Phone of Oklahoma" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobile Phone of Oklahoma for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Phone of Oklahoma's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1772A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Chapin Long Distance, Inc. ("Chapin Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Chapin Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Chapin Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Chapin Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1774A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lunex Telecom, Inc. ("Lunex Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lunex Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lunex Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lunex Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1775A1.html
  • "Commission") and Maverick Media of Eau Claire Communications, LLC d/b/a Page Call Communications ("Maverick Media" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Maverick Media for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Maverick Media's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Maverick Media have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1776A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and McBlue Telecom, Inc. ("McBlue" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against McBlue for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding McBlue's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and McBlue have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1778A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Metro Beeper, Inc. ("Metro Beeper" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Metro Beeper for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metro Beeper's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Metro Beeper have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1779A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Milbank Communications, Inc. ("Milbank Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Milbank Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Milbank Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Milbank Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1781A1.html
  • or "Commission") and Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc. ("Cordova" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cordova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cordova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1819A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Argentina USA, Inc. ("Telecom Argentina" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telecom Argentina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telecom Argentina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telecom Argentina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1821A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and The Beeper People, Inc. d/b/a AirPage ("Beeper People" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Beeper People for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Beeper People's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Beeper People have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1822A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Texapage N.E., Inc. ("Texapage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Texapage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Texapage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Texapage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1823A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Valley Communications of Moses Lake, Inc. d/b/a Tele-Waves ("Valley Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Valley Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Valley Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Valley Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1824A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and World Communication Center, Inc. ("World Communication Center" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against World Communication Center for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communication Center's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and World Communication Center have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1825A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tim Ron Enterprises, LLC ("Tim Ron Enterprises" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tim Ron Enterprises for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tim Ron Enterprises' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tim Ron Enterprises have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1826A1.html
  • "Commission") and Radio Communications of Charleston, Inc. d/b/a FirstPage ("Radio Communications of Charleston" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Radio Communications of Charleston for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Radio Communications of Charleston's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Radio Communications of Charleston have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1827A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Wireless Telecommunications Corp. f/k/a Westar Communications, Inc. ("Westar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1828A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Leflore Communications, Inc. ("Leflore" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Leflore Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Leflore's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Leflore have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1829A1.html
  • X5 Solutions, X5 SLC, LLC d/b/a X5 Solutions, and X5 Solutions, Inc. (collectively, "X5 Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against X5 Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X5 Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and X5 Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1830A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Premiere Communications Systems, Inc. ("Premiere Communications Systems" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Premiere Communications Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Premiere Communications Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Premiere Communications Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1831A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lectronics, Inc. ("Lectronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lectronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lectronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lectronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1832A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hello Pager Company, Inc. d/b/a Hello, Inc. ("Hello Pager" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Hello Pager for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hello Pager's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Hello Pager have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1833A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and RCC, Inc. d/b/a Radio-Comm Co. ("RCC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RCC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1834A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Globaltel LD, Inc. d/b/a American Roaming Network ("ARN" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ARN for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ARN's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ARN have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1835A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LaVergne's TeleMessaging, Inc. ("LaVergne's" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LaVergne's for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LaVergne's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LaVergne's have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1841A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless ("Keystone Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Keystone Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Keystone Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Keystone Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1842A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd Mobile"). 2. On March 26, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Amp'd Mobile for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Amp'd Mobile was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Amp'd Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1843A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. ("Oneida"). 2. On March 29, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Oneida for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Oneida was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1844A1.html
  • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ("CTI"). 2. On August 10, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to CTI for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 4. IT IS
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1845A1.html
  • for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless ("Key"). 2. On March 28, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Key for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Key was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1846A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville Telephone"). 2. On July 19, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Mechanicsville Telephone for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mechanicsville Telephone was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1898A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telephone Answering Service, Inc. ("Telephone Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telephone Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telephone Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telephone Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1899A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Alaska Telecom, Inc. ("Alaska Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alaska Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alaska Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Alaska Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1900A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ATL Communications d/b/a Sunriver Telecom ("ATL Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ATL Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ATL Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ATL Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1901A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CSM Wireless, Inc. ("CSM Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CSM Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CSM Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CSM Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1902A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CTI Long Distance ("CTI Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CTI Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CTI Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTI Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1911A1.html
  • Liability ("NALs") released in February, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In February, 2009, the Bureau issued to each of these companies a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture based on their apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to file a compliant CPNI certification with the Bureau. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1913A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation ("Easterbrooke Cellular"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Easterbrooke Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Easterbrooke Cellular's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Easterbrooke Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1923A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComTech21, LLC ("ComTech21" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComTech21 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech21's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComTech21 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1924A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North Bell Communications Corp. ("North Bell Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North Bell Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Bell Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and North Bell Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1925A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Go Solo Technologies ("Go Solo Technologies" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Go Solo Technologies for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go Solo Technologies' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Go Solo Technologies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1926A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CloseCall America, Inc. ("CloseCall" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CloseCall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CloseCall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CloseCall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1927A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and KK Communications, L.P. d/b/a Autophone of Laredo, LTD ("KK Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KK Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KK Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KK Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1928A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Midwestern Telecommunications, Inc. ("Midwestern" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Midwestern for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwestern's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Midwestern have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1929A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Com-Nav, Inc. d/b/a Radio Telephone of Maine ("Com-Nav" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Com-Nav for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Com-Nav's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Com-Nav have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1930A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cook Telecom, Inc. ("Cook Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cook Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cook Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cook Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1939A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and 01 Communications, Inc. ("01 Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against [Company name] for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 01 Communication's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and 01 Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1940A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Manchester-Hartland Telephone Co. ("Manchester-Hartland" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Manchester-Hartland for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Manchester-Hartland's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Manchester-Hartland have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1941A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Midwest Management, Inc. -- Consolidated ("Midwest Management" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Midwest Management for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwest Management's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Midwest Management have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1943A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ProPage, Inc. ("ProPage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ProPage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ProPage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ProPage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1944A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Standard Electronics West, Inc. d/b/a ALLPAGE ("Standard Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Standard Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Standard Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Standard Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1962A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and X2 Comm, Inc. d/b/a DC Communications ("X2 Comm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against X2 Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X2 Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and X2 Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1963A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nova Cellular West, Inc. d/b/a San Diego Wireless ("Nova Cellular" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nova Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nova Cellular's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nova Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1964A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Pete's Communications, Inc. ("Pete's Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pete's Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pete's Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pete's Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1965A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Omnicom Paging Plus, LLC ("Omnicom Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Omnicom Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Omnicom Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Omnicom Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1966A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North Sight Communications, Inc. ("North Sight Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North Sight Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Sight Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and North Sight Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1978A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Go2tel.com, Inc. ("Go2tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Go2tel.com, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go2tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Go2tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1979A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and FullTel, Inc. ("FullTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against FullTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FullTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and FullTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1980A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tel Tec, Inc. ("Tel Tec" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tel Tec for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tel Tec's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tel Tec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1981A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tularosa Communications, Inc. ("Tularosa" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tularosa Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tularosa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tularosa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1982A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC ("LTS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LTS's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1983A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC ("Magellan" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Magellan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Magellan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1984A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and American Page Network ("American Page Network" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against American Page Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding American Page Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and American Page Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1985A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ruddata Corporation d/b/a VCI Internet Service ("Ruddata" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ruddata for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ruddata's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ruddata have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1986A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele-Beep Paging Co. ("Tele-Beep Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele-Beep Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele-Beep Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele-Beep Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1987A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TRI-M Communications, Inc. ("TRI-M Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TRI-M Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TRI-M Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TRI-M Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2017A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mountain Paging Network, Inc. ("Mountain Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mountain Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mountain Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2018A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dixie-Net Communications ("Dixie-Net" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dixie-Net for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dixie-Net's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dixie-Net have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2019A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Litecall, Inc. ("Litecall" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Litecall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Litecall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Litecall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2020A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BendTel d/b/a Bend Data Center ("BendTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BendTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BendTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BendTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2021A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Biddeford Internet Corporation d/b/a Great Works Internet ("Biddeford" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Biddeford for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Biddeford's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Biddeford have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2022A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TelNet Worldwide, Inc. ("TelNet Worldwide" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TelNet Worldwide for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelNet Worldwide's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TelNet Worldwide have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2023A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Web Fire Communications, Inc. ("Web Fire" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Web Fire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Web Fire's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Web Fire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2024A1.html
  • and Sagir, Inc. d/b/a Indigo Wireless and Americell PA3, LP d/b/a Indigo Wireless ("Indigo Wireless" or "Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Indigo Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Indigo Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Indigo Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2025A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Raycom Electronics, Inc. ("Raycom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Raycom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Raycom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Raycom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2026A1.html
  • "Commission") and T/A Apartment Services, Inc. d/b/a Off Campus Telecommunications, Inc. ("T/A Apartment Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against T/A Apartment Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding T/A Apartment Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and T/A Apartment Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2027A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Shorelink Communications Corp. ("Shorelink" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Shorelink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Shorelink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Shorelink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2028A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services ("General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2052A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and St. Olaf College ("St. Olaf" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against St. Olaf for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding St. Olaf's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and St. Olaf have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2053A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Outfitter Satellite, Inc. ("Outfitter Satellite" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Outfitter Satellite for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Outfitter Satellite's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Outfitter Satellite have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2054A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and A.M.S. Voicecom, Inc. ("A.M.S. Voicecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against A.M.S. Voicecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A.M.S. Voicecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and A.M.S. Voicecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2055A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Sumrada Communications Service, Inc. ("Sumrada" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Sumrada for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Sumrada's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Sumrada have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2056A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Huntleigh Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("Huntleigh Telecommunications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Huntleigh Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huntleigh Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Huntleigh Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2131A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Corporate Networking, Inc., ("Advanced" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Corporate Networking for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2135A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Answerphone Services, Inc. d/b/a Direct Page Communications ("Answerphone Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Answerphone Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answerphone Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Answerphone Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2136A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Utility Telephone, Inc. and Anew Telecommunications d/b/a Call America (jointly, "Utility" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Utility for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Utility's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Utility have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2137A1.html
  • Inc. d/b/a Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. and Reserve Long Distance Company, Inc. (jointly, "Reserve Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Reserve Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reserve Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Reserve Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2138A1.html
  • Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company ("Bluegrass" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bluegrass's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bluegrass have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2173A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and 3U Telecom, Inc. ("3U Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against 3U Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 3U Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and 3U Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2174A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobilephone of Humboldt, Inc. ("Mobilephone of Humboldt" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobilephone of Humboldt for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilephone of Humboldt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobilephone of Humboldt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2175A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ImOn Communications, LLC ("ImOn" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ImOn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ImOn's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ImOn have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2176A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Professional Answering Service, Inc. ("Professional Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Professional Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Professional Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Professional Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2177A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and User Centric Communications, Inc. ("User Centric" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against User Centric for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding User Centric's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and User Centric have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2205A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Custom Tel, LLC ("Custom Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Custom Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Custom Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Custom Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2206A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Global Tech Telecommunications, Inc. ("Global Tech" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Global Tech for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Tech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Global Tech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2207A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and HUB Communications, Inc. ("HUB Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against HUB Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding HUB Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and HUB Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2208A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mountain Communications and Electronics, Inc. ("Mountain Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mountain Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mountain Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2209A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telegration, Inc. ("Telegration" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telegration for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telegration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telegration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2224A1.html
  • terms and conditions of this Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification, and formally terminating the above-captioned Investigations. l. "Parties" means AT&T and the Bureau, each of which is a "Party." m. "Rules" means those rules and regulations codified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. III. BACKGROUND Investigation EB-09-TC-382 3. On June 1, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, AT&T filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") opt-out mechanism. According to AT&T, the CPNI toll-free number used by small business customers to opt-out was mistakenly disconnected. AT&T reported that when small business customers called the toll-free number during business hours, they were automatically routed to a call
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2272A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Parker FiberNet, LLC ("Parker FiberNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Parker FiberNet, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Parker FiberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Parker FiberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2273A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CP Telecom Inc. f/k/a ComputerPro, Inc. ("ComputerPro" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComputerPro for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComputerPro's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComputerPro have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2274A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Unitycomm, LLC d/b/a U4Com ("Unitycomm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Unitycomm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Unitycomm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Unitycomm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2282A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2325A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and A & W Communications, Inc. ("A & W Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against A & W Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A & W Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and A & W Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2327A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Kelley's Tele-Communications, Inc. ("Kelley's Tele-Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Kelley's Tele-Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kelley's Tele-Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Kelley's Tele-Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2328A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobilpage, Inc. ("Mobilpage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobilpage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilpage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobilpage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2363A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Paxx Telecom, LLC ("Paxx Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Paxx Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Paxx Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Paxx Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2364A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dunnell Tel. Co. ("Dunnell" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dunnell for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dunnell's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dunnell have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2371A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2390A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and New Start Communication Corp. ("New Start" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Start for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Start's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Start have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-292A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). II. BACKGROUND
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-293A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). II. BACKGROUND
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-692A1.html
  • North American Numbering Plan ("NANP") and Local Number Portability ("LNP") administration; and the submission of information as set forth on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q). The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSpan for possible violations of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSpan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Bureau and ComSpan have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-832A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. ("HBC"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against HBC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and HBC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-833A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. ("Shoreham"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Shoreham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Shoreham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1025A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Voip Alliance, LLC ("Voip Alliance"). Voip Alliance has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Voip Alliance is a prepaid calling card provider located in McAllen, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Voip Alliance is subject to the requirements of section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1026A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Touch-Tel USA, LLC ("Touch-Tel USA"). Touch-Tel USA has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Touch-Tel USA is a prepaid calling card provider located in Houston, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Touch-Tel USA is subject to the requirements of section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1028A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Phone Club Corporation ("Phone Club"). Phone Club has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Phone Club is a reseller of local and long distance telecommunications services located in Miami, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Phone Club is subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1029A1.html
  • Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina ("Nu Era Telecom"). Nu Era Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Nu Era Telecom is an interexchange telecommunications carrier located in Miami Beach, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Nu Era Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1031A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. ("DigitGlobal Communications"). DigitGlobal Communications has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. DigitGlobal Communications is a telecommunications carrier located in Kew Gardens, New York. As a telecommunications carrier, DigitGlobal Communications is subject to the requirements of section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1032A1.html
  • Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com ("Straightel"). Straightel has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Straightel is a Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") and prepaid calling card carrier located in Miramar, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Straightel is subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1115A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Communications, Inc. ("Southwest Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Southwest Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1116A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LGT - Latin Global Telecom, LLC ("LGT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LGT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LGT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LGT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1142A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely and/or compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1150A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CCI Network Services, LLC ("CCI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1153A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Public Service Communications, Inc. ("Public Service Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Public Service Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Public Service Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Public Service Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1197A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Toly Digital Network, Inc. ("Toly Digital" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Toly Digital for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toly Digital's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Toly Digital have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-119A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Business Integration Network ("Advance Business Integration" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Business Integration Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Business Integration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced Business Integration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-120A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Call-O-Call, Inc. ("Call-O-Call" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Call-O-Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call-O-Call's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Call-O-Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1220A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and AccessCom, Inc. ("AccessCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against AccessCom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AccessCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and AccessCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1258A1.html
  • follows upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Dezco Communications, Inc. ("Dezco Communications"). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Dezco Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Dezco Communications was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1259A1.html
  • Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Galaxy Internet Services, Inc.. ("Galaxy Internet Services"). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Galaxy Internet Services apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Galaxy Internet Services was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1436A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and New Bridge Technologies, Inc. ("New Bridge" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Bridge for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Bridge's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Bridge have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1469A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ValuTel Communications, Inc. ("ValuTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ValuTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ValuTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ValuTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1484A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Saving Call, LLC ("Saving Call" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Saving Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Saving Call's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Saving Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1497A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-14A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telebeep, Inc. ("Telebeep" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telebeep for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telebeep's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telebeep have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1509A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Accutel of Texas, LP ("Accutel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Accutel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Accutel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Accutel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1510A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Revolution Communications Company, LTD ("Revolution Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Revolution Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Revolution Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Revolution Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1568A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Crossfire Telecommunications, LLC ("Crossfire" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Crossfire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Crossfire's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Crossfire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-15A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Multi Voice, Inc. ("Multi Voice" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Multi Voice for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Multi Voice's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Multi Voice have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1636A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NTS Services Corp. ("NTS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NTS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NTS's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-16A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lyca Tel, LLC ("Lyca Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lyca Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lyca Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lyca Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1710A1.html
  • Forfeiture of February 18, 2008, we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Blue Casa Communications, Inc. d/b/a Blue Casa Communications, LLC (Blue Casa or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Blue Casa apparently liable for a forfeiture for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1769A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1771A1.html
  • upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc. (Intercel or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Intercel apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Intercel was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1794A1.html
  • a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 28, 2011 by Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot ("Think 12"). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for Think 12's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. II. Background 2. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois that resells interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-17A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clon Communications, LLC ("Clon" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clon for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-186A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Royal Phone Company, LLC ("Royal Phone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Royal Phone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Royal Phone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Royal Phone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1876A1.html
  • for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. (Unitec or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or the Communications Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1877A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-187A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Franz, Inc. d/b/a Telelight, Inc. ("Franz" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Franz for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Franz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Franz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-188A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CyberNet Communications, Inc. ("CyberNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CyberNet Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CyberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CyberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-189A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Davidson Telecom, LLC ("Davidson" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Davidson Telecom, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Davidson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Davidson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-18A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Central Communications Service Co. ("Central Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Central Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Central Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Central Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-190A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Access, Inc. ("International Access" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1944A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $29,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2008 and 2009. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-198A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine North, Inc. ("NationsLine North" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine North for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine North's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine North have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-199A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine Delaware, Inc. ("NationsLine Delaware" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine Delaware for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Delaware's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine Delaware have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-19A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Atlantic Telecom, Inc. ("Atlantic Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Atlantic Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Atlantic Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Atlantic Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-200A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine District of Columbia, Inc. ("NationsLine DC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine DC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine DC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine DC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-201A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine Virginia, Inc. ("NationsLine Virginia" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine Virginia for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Virginia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine Virginia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-202A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine, Inc. ("NationsLine" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-20A1.html
  • and Advantage Wireless Communications, Inc. d/b/a Almar Communications and Blackhawk Communications ("Advantage Wireless Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advantage Wireless Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advantage Wireless Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advantage Wireless Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-275A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Delta Telecom, Inc. ("Delta Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Delta Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Delta Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Delta Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-277A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Coast International, Inc. ("Coast International" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Coast International for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Coast International's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Coast International have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-280A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cyber Mesa Computer Systems, Inc. ("Cyber Mesa" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cyber Mesa for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cyber Mesa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cyber Mesa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-299A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. ("DNA" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DNA's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DNA have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-313A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Simplink Corporation ("Simplink" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Simplink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Simplink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Simplink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-319A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NET/COMM Services, Corp. ("NET/COMM Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NET/COMM Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NET/COMM Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NET/COMM Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-321A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. ("TelePlus" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelePlus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TelePlus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-326A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Pacific Telecom Services, Inc. ("Pacific Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pacific Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pacific Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pacific Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-32A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and PR Wireless, Inc. d/b/a OPEN Mobile ("PR Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against PR Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PR Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and PR Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-33A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and PiperTel Communications, LLC ("PiperTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against PiperTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PiperTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and PiperTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-344A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Network Services Solutions, LLC ("Network Services Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Network Services Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Network Services Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Network Services Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-345A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Internet & Telephone, LLC ("Internet & Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Internet & Telephone, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Internet & Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Internet & Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-34A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NetSpan Corporation d/b/a Foremost Telecommunications ("NetSpan Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NetSpan Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NetSpan Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NetSpan Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-361A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and China Unicom (Americas) Operations Ltd. Corporation ("China Unicom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against China Unicom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding China Unicom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and China Unicom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-365A1.html
  • 25, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot ("Think 12") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois providing resold interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-36A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North County Communications Corp. ("NCCC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North County Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NCCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-371A1.html
  • Appendix I ) ) OMNIBUS NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: February 25, 2011 Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I ("the Companies"), have apparently willfully and repeatedly violated (1) section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") rules by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, and (2) an Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") order by failing to provide certain information regarding their CPNI filings. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding both apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-37A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Association Administrators, Inc. ("Association Administrators" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Association Administrators for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Association Administrators' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Association Administrators have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-38A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ring Connection, Inc. ("Ring Connection" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ring Connection for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ring Connection's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ring Connection have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-418A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Consultants, Inc. ("TCI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-421A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nationwide Telecom, Inc. ("Nationwide Telecom") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Nationwide Telecom is a telecommunications carrier located in West Hills, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Nationwide Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-422A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Calmtel USA, Inc. ("Calmtel USA") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Calmtel USA is a telecommunications carrier located in Los Angeles, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Calmtel USA is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-423A1.html
  • Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Diamond Phone Card, Inc. ("Diamond Phone") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Diamond Phone is a telecommunications carrier located in Elmhurst, New York providing prepaid phone card services. As a telecommunications carrier, Diamond Phone is subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-424A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against USA Teleport, Inc. ("USA Teleport") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. USA Teleport is a telecommunications carrier located in North Miami Beach, Florida providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USA Teleport is subject to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-487A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Integrated Telemanagement Services, Inc. d/b/a OMNICOM ("Integrated Telemanagement" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Integrated Telemanagement for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Integrated Telemanagement's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Integrated Telemanagement have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-545A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele Circuit Network Corporation ("Tele Circuit" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele Circuit for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Circuit's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele Circuit have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-546A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westgate Communications, LLC d/b/a WeavTel ("Westgate Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westgate Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westgate Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westgate Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-556A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ZTG, Inc. ("ZTG" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ZTG for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ZTG's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ZTG have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-587A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-69A1.html
  • and United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One ("Call One" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call One's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Call One have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-70A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. ("Telestar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telestar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telestar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-71A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Latino Communications Corp. ("Latino Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Latino Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Latino Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Latino Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-72A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Team Electronics, Inc. ("Team Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Team Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Team Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Team Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-73A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Neutral Tandem, Inc. ("Neutral" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Neutral Tandem for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Neutral's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Neutral have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-742A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-743A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-802A1.html
  • the Commission's rules, we deny a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 8, 2011, by USA Teleport, Inc. ("USAT"). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for USTA's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; paragraphs 51 and 53 of the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. II. Background 2. USAT is a telecommunications carrier, located in North Miami Beach, Florida, that provides interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USAT is subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-813A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Metronet Telecom, Inc. ("Metronet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Metronet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metronet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Metronet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-994A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-999A1.html
  • June 6, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against 88 Telecom Corporation ("88 Telecom"). 88 Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. 88 Telecom is a prepaid calling card telecommunications carrier located in San Francisco, California. As a telecommunications carrier, 88 Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-267A1.html
  • and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning various regulatory fee and reporting obligations as well as required contributions to the Universal Service Fund, the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, and the North American Numbering Plan and Local Number Portability administration. The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation by the Bureau into possible violations of Section 222 of the Act, Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order regarding BSCI's customer proprietary network information obligations. 2. A copy of the Consent Decree negotiated by the Bureau and BSCI is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-628A1.html
  • between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Ztar Mobile, Inc. (Ztar). The Consent Decree resolves and terminates the Bureau's investigations into Ztar's compliance with Section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning the deployment of digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets and with Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the EPIC CPNI Order, concerning the filing of an annual Customer Proprietary Network Information certification. 2. The Bureau and Ztar have negotiated the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-06-223A1.html
  • you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** DA 06-223 Released: January 30, 2006 Enforcement Bureau Directs All Telecommunications Carriers to Submit CPNI Compliance Certifications In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) directs all telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless carriers, to submit a compliance certificate to the Commission as required by section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules.1 Carrier certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with the rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),2 requires that telecommunications carriers
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-06-258A1.html
  • about the safeguards employed by the companies handling their private information and contacted the Bureau seeking information about the CPNI compliance certifications. Opening a new docket will enable the public to more easily access these carrier certificates. Carrier compliance certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Any CPNI compliance certifications already filed electronically with the Commission will be moved to the new docket by Commission staff. Carriers do not need to re-file their certifications. Filing Procedures Carriers' reports, to be filed on or before February
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-08-171A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 08-171 January 29, 2008 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications ("CPNI Certifications") pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed no later than March 1, 2008, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On April
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-09-240A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 09-240 February 13, 2009 Enforcement Bureau Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) again reminds all companies subject to its CPNI rules of their obligation to file their CPNI Certification no later than March 1, 2009. Certifications must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided below. Background. On April 2, 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-09-9A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 09-9 January 7, 2009 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (CPNI Certifications) pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed annually between January 1 and March 1, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-10-91A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-159A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-12-170A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/Welcome.html
  • 05-19-2010 [35]States that Have Certified that They Regulate Pole Attachments 01-15-2010 [36]Enforcement Bureau Takes Action to Enhance Access to Digital Wireless Service for Individuals with Hearing Disabilities 01-15-2010 [37]Annual CPNI Certicifations Due March 1, 2010 02-13-2009 [38]EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 01-07-2009 [39]EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 03-21-2008 [40]Corrected List of States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments - WC Docket No. 07-245 01-29-2008 [41]EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e) 09-07-2006 [42]FCC Announces Filing Procedures
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/TPI.html
  • information (CPNI) issues 04-28-2009 $4,000 Forfeiture against [389]1st United Tel-Com, Inc. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 02-24-2009 $4,000 forfeiture proposed against [390]Leflore Communications, Inc. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 02-13-2009 [391]Public Notice EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 01-07-2009 [392]Public Notice EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 02-19-2008 $100,000 Consent Decree with [393]CTC Communications Corp. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 01-29-2008 [394]Public Notice - EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e) 11-29-2007 $100,000 Forfeiture
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/eabydate.html
  • residential or cellular telephone lines 02-13-2009 [653]Citation issued to Bank Card POS LLC for apparent violation of the TCPA and Commission's rules regarding delivering prerecorded unsolicited advertisements to residential or cellular telephone lines 02-13-2009 [654]Public Notice EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 02-13-2009 $4,500 Forfeiture against [655]Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. concerning violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Unsolicited Junk Faxes) 02-12-2009 [656]Citation issued to Lowe's Companies, Inc. for apparent violation of the TCPA and Commission's rules regarding delivering prerecorded unsolicited advertisements to residential or cellular telephone lines 02-12-2009 [657]Citation issued to Proficient Marketing LLC for apparent violation of the TCPA
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/filing.html
  • Process * [30]Section 1.8001 Commission Registration System (CORES) * [31]Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) [ARMIS Reports 43-01 through 43-08 and ARMIS Reports 495-A and 495-B.] * [32]Section 43.21(c) Letter [Formerly Form P.] * [33]Interstate Service Tariff * [34]Section 64.709 Interstate Service INFORMATIONAL Tariff Requirement * [35]Section 64.1195 Carrier Registration Requirement * [36]Section 64.1900 Geographic Rate Averaging Certification * [37]Section 64.2009 Annual CPNI Compliance Certification * [38]Section 64.2105 Creation and Filing of System Security and Integrity Manuals as required by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) * [39]Section 64.5001 Quarterly PIU Reporting and Certification * [40]Regulatory Fees [41]Additional Requirements that Apply to International Service Providers * [42]International Section 214 Approval * [43]International Service Tariff * [44]Section 43.61 International Traffic
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4507 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170011 FRN: 0014731822 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd'' or ``Amp'd Mobile'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the subpart governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.pdf
  • 0003772274 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that KLM Telephone Company, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively ``KLM''), apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he had personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.pdf
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4261 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170035 FRN:0001544790 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation, (``Easterbrooke Cellular'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.pdf
  • Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4483 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0037 FRN: 0005013669 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that CTC Communications Corporation (``CTC'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4500 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0038 FRN 0004380200 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. (``Shoreham'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its CPNI compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules regarding the use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.pdf
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4496 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170055 FRN: 0004272373 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-3411 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170023 FRN: 0004337218 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (``Oneida'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its annual certification explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.pdf
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.pdf
  • directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). On January 27, 2007, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Burke's Garden directing Burke's Garden to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Burke's Garden for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Burke's Garden filed a response to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4518 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0041 FRN: 0003748340 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Mechanicsville Telephone Company (``Mechanicsville Telephone'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an annual certificate signed by a corporate officer stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4111 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170017 FRN: 0003765740 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a/ A-1 Communications (``Audio-Video'' ) apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.pdf
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry (``LOIs'') to several carriers, including Connect, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Connect did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to Connect for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On April 27, 2007, Connect submitted several documents in response to the NAL, including a letter from its President, Byron T. Young, which explains, among
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4731 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170054 FRN: 0013394028 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone (``Connect'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.pdf
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry (``LOIs'') to several carriers, including PhoneCo, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. PhoneCo did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to PhoneCo for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On June 27, 2007, PhoneCo submitted a response to the NAL, which explains the Company's reasons for failing to respond to the LOI. PhoneCo states
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.pdf
  • Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4006 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0076 FRN: 0003743119 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (``CTI'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-6030 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0009 FRN: 0007704166 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC (``River City Wireless'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.pdf
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and AT&T Inc. (``AT&T''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') regarding AT&T Corp.'s compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a). The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.pdf
  • Liberty Phones is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. BACKGROUND Liberty Phones, an Arkansas-based company authorized to provide local and interexchange telecommunications services since 2002, provides prepaid residential and small business telephone service. On February 6, 2006, Liberty Phones submitted to the Bureau a Certificate of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') filing pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Upon checking, Bureau staff learned there was no record of Liberty Phones registering with the Commission or submitting Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (FCC Form 499) to the Universal Service Administrative Company (``USAC''), or making associated payments to the requisite federal regulatory programs. On May 31, 2007, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (``LOI'') to Liberty Phones
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') adopts the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and Cbeyond Communications, Inc. (``Cbeyond''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against Cbeyond for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act'') and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Consent decree terminates an investigation into Cbeyond's compliance with section 64.2007(a)(3) of the Commission's rules regarding customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). The Bureau and Cbeyond have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Based on the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.pdf
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-3543 NAL/Acct. No. 20083217 0003 FRN: 0004938064 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 29, 2007 Released: November 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. (``Dialaround'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit | P DA 08-171 January 29, 2008 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (``CPNI Certifications'') pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed no later than March 1, 2008, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On April
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.pdf
  • based on the caller's location. E911 also provides the call taker with the caller's call back number ... and in many cases, location information....'' Id. at 10251 ¶13 (footnotes omitted). See id. at 10246 n.2 (citing examples of VoIP customers futilely attempting to call 911 during emergency situations). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.20000 - 1.20008. See id. §§ 64.2001 - 64.2009. See id. §§ 64.601 - 64.608. See id. §§ 6.1 - 6.23 and §§ 7.1 - 7.23. See id. §§ 52.20 - 52.33 See id. § 54.706. See id. § 64.604. See id. § 52.17. See id. § 52.32. See id. § 64.1195. Id. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920 Federal Communications Commission DA
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.pdf
  • into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against CTC for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTC have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.pdf
  • to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). On December 5, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Manning directing Manning to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Manning for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Manning filed responses to the NAL on May
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.pdf
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). 2. On December 12, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Habla directing Habla to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Habla for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. The NAL was sent by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Wilson Communication Company, Inc. (``Wilson'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Wilson for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Wilson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Wilson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and WTC Communications, Inc. (``WTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against WTC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and WTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clearcom, Inc. (``Clearcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clearcom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clearcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clearcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Supply, Inc. (``TSI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telecom Supply, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TSI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CenCom, Inc. (``CenCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CenCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CenCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CenCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComSouth Telenet, Inc. (``ComSouth'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSouth Telenet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170168 FRN: 0005013699 ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. (``@Communications'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On September 2, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to @Communications asking @Communications whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for the calendar
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170102 FRN: 0004272373 ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 29, 2008, PriorityOne filed a certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules with the Commission's Secretary. In reviewing the certifications filed, the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. (``ComSouth'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComTech Solutions, LLC (``ComTech'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComTech Solutions, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComTech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. (``Nebraska'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nebraska's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nebraska have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Stanton Long Distance, LLC (``Stanton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Stanton Long Distance, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Stanton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Stanton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC (``NLD'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NLD's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NLD have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ligtel Communications, Inc. (``Ligtel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ligtel Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ligtel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ligtel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Texas Long Distance Company (``Southwest'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Texas Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Southwest have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. (``TCB'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCB's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TCB have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and RTC Communications Corp. (``RTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RTC Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Smithville Telecom, Inc. (``Smithville'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Smithville Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Smithville's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Smithville have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ASTAC Long Distance (``ASTAC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ASTAC Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ASTAC Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ASTAC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. (``Family Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Family Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Family Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.pdf
  • 200932170299 FRN: 0002381873 ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 6, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville (``Naperville'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Naperville a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0018509778 ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 5, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. (``Sweetser'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Sweetser a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clay County Communications, LLC (``Clay County'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clay County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clay County's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clay County have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. (``Giles-Craig'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Giles-Craig's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Giles-Craig have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.pdf
  • 200932170783 FRN: 0005024641 ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. (``TCO Network'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On September 5, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to TCO Network asking TCO Network whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.pdf
  • ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. (``Hinton'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Hinton a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170825 FRN: 0010103497 ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170086 FRN: 0005075403 ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. (``Momentum'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Momentum a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Evertek, Inc. (``Evertek'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Evertek, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Evertek's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Evertek have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Topsham Communications, LLC (``Topsham'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Topsham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Topsham's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Topsham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.pdf
  • Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications (``B & B Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B & B Communications Network, Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & B Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B & B Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GBT Communications, Inc. (``GBT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GBT Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GBT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GBT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. (``Cedar-Wapsie'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cedar-Wapsie's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cedar-Wapsie have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NMRSA6-III Partnership (``NMRSA6-III'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NMRSA6-III Partnership for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NMRSA6-III's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NMRSA6-III have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. (``SOTI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SOTI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and SOTI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Peetz Communications, LLC (``Peetz'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Peetz Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Peetz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Peetz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Northeast Competitive Access Provider (``NCAP'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Northeast Competitive Access Provider for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCAP's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NCAP have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Carr Communications, Inc. (``Carr'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Carr Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carr's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Carr have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. (``Ogden'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ogden's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ogden have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westphalia Communications, Inc. (``Westphalia'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westphalia Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westphalia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westphalia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and SpringCom, Inc. (``SpringCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against SpringCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SpringCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and SpringCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.pdf
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and AT&T, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates (collectively ``AT&T'' or ``the AT&T Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Bureau against the AT&T Companies for possible violation of section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(3)(ii), 64.2008(d)(3)(v) and 64.2009(a) of the Federal Communication Commission's (``Commission'') rules relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and sections 201(b) and 254 of the Act, and sections 54.712(a), 69.131 and 69.158 of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. The Bureau and the AT&T Companies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fort Mojave Television, Inc. (``Fort Mojave'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fort Mojave Television, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fort Mojave's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fort Mojave have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and AP&T Wireless, Inc. (``AP&T'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against AP&T Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AP&T's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and AP&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Falcon1, Inc. (``Falcon1'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Falcon1 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Falcon1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Falcon1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TSC Communications, Inc. (``TSC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TSC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TSC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.pdf
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad, Inc. (``Cellular Abroad''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Cellular Abroad a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Cellular Abroad's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Cellular Abroad, we agree with Cellular Abroad that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Cellular Abroad is not a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The City of Daytona Beach (``Daytona Beach''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Daytona Beach a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Daytona Beach's apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Daytona Beach, we agree with Daytona Beach that Daytona Beach was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due. Accordingly, we
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.pdf
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC (``Nebraska Supercomm''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Nebraska Supercomm a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Nebraska Supercomm's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon new information provided by Nebraska Supercomm, we agree with Nebraska Supercomm that it did not have any telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.pdf
  • Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. (``Pilgrim''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Pilgrim a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Pilgrim's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Pilgrim, we agree with Pilgrim that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. During the 2007 calendar year, Pilgrim was
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.pdf
  • Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. (``Visionary''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Visionary a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Visionary's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Visionary, we agree with Visionary that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Visionary is not a telecommunications carrier, and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc (``Zicore''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Zicore a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Zicore's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Zicore, we agree with Zicore that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.pdf
  • Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc (``Isan''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Isan a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Isan's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Isan, we agree with Isan that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC (``Plains''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Plains a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Plains' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Plains, we agree with Plains that it had timely filed its CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate section
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound (``Orange''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Orange a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Orange's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Orange, we agree with Orange that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007 was
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. (``Freedom''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Freedom's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Freedom, we agree with Freedom that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007 was
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.pdf
  • this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company (``Allendale''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Allendale a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Allendale's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Allendale, we agree with Allendale that it had timely filed its annual CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.pdf
  • In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated (``Worldwide Marketing''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Worldwide Marketing a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Worldwide Marketing's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Worldwide Marketing, we agree with Worldwide Marketing that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance (``Clarks''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Clarks a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Clarks' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Clarks, we agree with Clarks that it was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due because it ceased offering telecommunications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit € D T DA 09-240 February 13, 2009 Enforcement Bureau Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) again reminds all companies subject to its CPNI rules of their obligation to file their CPNI Certification no later than March 1, 2009. Certifications must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided below. Background. On April 2, 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.pdf
  • 200932170027 FRN: 0017197344 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Big Telephone, Inc. (``Big Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Big Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.pdf
  • XXXX NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. (``Ben Lomand Rural'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand Rural is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170025 FRN: 0003729142 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ben Lomand Communications, LLC (``Ben Lomand'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170024 FRN: 0017992298 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Bellvoz Corp. (``Bellvoz'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bellvoz is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.pdf
  • 200932170023 FRN: 0004056602 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Bee Line Cable (``Bee Line'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bee Line is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170022 FRN: 0003802204 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc.(``Atlantic'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Atlantic is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., (``American Fiber'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that American Fiber is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170018 FRN: 0004914909 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Action Communications, Inc. (``Action'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Action is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.pdf
  • 001380018 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that 800 Response Information Services LLC (``800 Response'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that 800 Response is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170029 FRN: 0004319406 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. (``Buckeye'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Buckeye is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170030 FRN: 0003723061 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Cherokee Telephone Company (``Cherokee'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cherokee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0007408073 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that China Telecom (Americas) Corporation (``China Telecom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that China Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0004375184 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom (``Communications Venture'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Communications Venture is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0015250202 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications (``Aquis'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Aquis is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.pdf
  • 200932170039 FRN: 0003742467 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Consolidated Telephone Company (``Consolidated Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Consolidated Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0003736360 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Clear World Communications Corporation (``Clear World'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clear World is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170042 FRN: 0011443066 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. (``D.G.A.'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that D.G.A. is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170072 FRN: 0017399262 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Isan Telecom, Inc. (``Isan'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Isan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.pdf
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC (``Tennessee'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Tennessee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging (``Kitchen Productions'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Kitchen Productions is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0002323731 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. (``KanOkla Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that KanOkla Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170077 FRN: 0017294992 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Latino Telecom, Inc. (``Latino Telecom'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Latino Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170130 FRN: 0006357826 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Threshold Communications, Inc. (``Threshold'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Threshold is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170078 FRN: 0005413042 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Leflore Communications, Inc. (``Leflore'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Leflore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. (``Legacy Long Distance'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Legacy Long Distance is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.pdf
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. (``M & L Enterprises'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that M & L Enterprises is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0017410390 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC (``Liberty'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Liberty is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One (``Call One'') or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Call One is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.pdf
  • 200932170082 FRN: 0017194317 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that McClure Telephone Company (``McClure Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that McClure Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.pdf
  • 0003737137 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that VDL, Inc. d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers (``VDL'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that VDL is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.pdf
  • 0016201642 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe (``Broadstripe'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Broadstripe is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170138 FRN: 0010827806 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Volunteer First Services, LLC (``Volunteer'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Volunteer is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170085 FRN: 0007116403 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Commnet Wireless, LLC (``Commnet'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Commnet is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170086 FRN: 0005075403 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Momentum Telecom, Inc. (``Momentum'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Momentum is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0017238452 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated (``Worldwide Marketing'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Worldwide Marketing is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.pdf
  • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. (``Angel Communications'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Angel Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Data Radio Management Company, Inc. (``Data Radio Management'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Data Radio Management is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170142 FRN: 0004921219 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find the Scott C. MacIntyre (``MacIntyre'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that MacIntyre is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.pdf
  • 0002775765 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Edward Adams Associates, Inc. (``Edward Adams Associates'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Edward Adams Associates is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170145 FRN: 0011476751 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Zicore Services, Inc. (``Zicore'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Zicore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170148 FRN: 0009809278 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that SI2Way, Inc. (``SI2Way'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SI2Way is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170149 FRN: 0002696300 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Wayne Frank (``Frank'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Frank is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170152 FRN: 0005030630 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that James T. Hopper (``Hopper'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hopper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.pdf
  • EB-09-TC-194 NAL/Acct. No. 200932170153 FRN: 0005027701 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Arthur N. Sherman (``Sherman'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sherman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0001611110 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. (``Telebeeper'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telebeeper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.pdf
  • 200932170155 FRN: 0003965514 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find That Clifford E. Bade (``Clifford Bade'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clifford Bade is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.pdf
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company (``National Brands'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that National Brands is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170091 FRN: 0005043195 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Netcarrier Telecom, Inc.(``Netcarrier'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Netcarrier is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.pdf
  • 200932170092 FRN: 0010737641 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Network Innovations, Inc. (``Network Innovations'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Network Innovations is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170094 FRN: 0004311809 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Nunn Telephone Company (``Nunn'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Nunn is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.pdf
  • 200932170095 FRN: 0005605688 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that O. Richard Knutson (``O.R. Knutson'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that O.R. Knutson is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170096 FRN: 0017064544 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that One Touch India LLC (``One Touch'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that One Touch is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom(``Phillips County'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Phillips County is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0009783093 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Prime Time Ventures (``Prime Time Ventures'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Prime Time Ventures is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170102 FRN: 0004272373 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that PriorityOne is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170103 FRN: 0002317725 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that ProCom LMR, Inc. (``ProCom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ProCom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170104 FRN: 0005814157 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find the Protek Leasing Corp. (``Protek'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Protek is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170044 FRN: 0010393882 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that DAR Communications Corporation (``DAR'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that DAR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0003736188 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. (``Santa Rosa'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.pdf
  • 0005063615 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (``Santa Rosa'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.pdf
  • 200932170111 FRN: 0003758877 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. (``Santel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170112 FRN: 0017217548 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Securetel Network Inc. (``Securetel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Securetel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.pdf
  • 200932170114 FRN: 0014198253 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. (``Shreveport'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Shreveport is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.pdf
  • 200932170048 FRN: 0005093372 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Dixville Telephone Company (``Dixville Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Dixville Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.pdf
  • 0017199878 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that E & F Telecom, Inc. (``E & F Telecom'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that E & F Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.pdf
  • 0013321211 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, (``Eastern Colorado'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Eastern Colorado is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170052 FRN: 0004999223 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that EGIX, Inc. (``EGIX'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that EGIX is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.pdf
  • 001776457 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that South Central Wireless, Inc, dba SCTelcom (``SCTelcom'') or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SCTelcom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.pdf
  • 0018509752 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. (``Specialized Mobile Radio'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Specialized Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170225 FRN: 0018509133 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that BKT Telecom Corp. (``BKT'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that BKT is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.pdf
  • 0004330130 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies (``First Mile'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that First Mile is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170057 FRN: 0003770773 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Gabriel Wireless, LLC (``Gabriel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Gabriel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.pdf
  • FRN: 0009725748 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that T2 Communications, LLC (``T2 Communications'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that T2 Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170058 FRN: 0014872337 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ganoco, Inc. (``Ganoco'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ganoco is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.pdf
  • No. EB-09-TC-164 NAL/Acct. No. 200932170123 FRN: 0014225684 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Telchin Corporation (``Telchin'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telchin is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.pdf
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that General Mobile Radio Service, Inc. (``General Mobile Radio'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that General Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.pdf
  • 200932170064 FRN: 0004329348 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. (``Hartman'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hartman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.pdf
  • No. 200932170066 FRN: 0011107539 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Highland Communications, LLC (``Highland'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Highland is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.pdf
  • 200932170126 FRN: 0010635696 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC (``TeleSpan'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that TeleSpan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit l @ DA 09-9 January 7, 2009 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (CPNI Certifications) pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed annually between January 1 and March 1, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.pdf
  • we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC (``Freedom Communications''). On February 26, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom Communications a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Freedom Communications' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Freedom Communications, we agree with Freedom Communications that it had submitted, by mail, a complete CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year; although several pages
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.pdf
  • their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation regarding Verizon's compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1), and section 64.2007 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2007. II. BACKGROUND 2. On January 27, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, Verizon filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its opt-out mechanism for obtaining customers' approval for use of their customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). The notice stated that, on January 16, 2009, Verizon discovered that the total number of opt-out customers compiled by its vendor was greater than the number in its database by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BBG Communications, Inc. (``BBG Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BBG Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BBG Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BBG Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CMC Telecom, Inc. (``CMC Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CMC Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMC Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CMC Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and DialToneServices, L.P. (``DialToneServices'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against DialToneServices for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DialToneServices' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DialToneServices have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Faircall Corporation d/b/a 1-800 Faircall (``Faircall Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Faircall Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Faircall Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Faircall Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. (``GLC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GLC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GLC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.pdf
  • or ``Commission'') and Impact Network Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Impact Long Distance (``Impact Network Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Impact Network Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Impact Network Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Impact Network Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Northwest Telephone, Inc. (``NWT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Northwest Telephone, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NWT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NWT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NovoLink Communications, Inc. (``NovoLink Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NovoLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NovoLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NovoLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Opcom, Inc. d/b/a WCS Telecom (``Opcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Opcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Opcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Opcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. (``Orlando'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Orlando's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Orlando have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Quasar Communications Corporation (``Quasar Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Quasar Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quasar Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Quasar Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele Uno, Inc. (``Tele Uno'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele Uno for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Uno's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele Uno have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Arkadin, Inc. (``Arkadin'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Arkadin for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Arkadin's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Arkadin have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.pdf
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clarksville Mutual Tel. Co. d/b/a Clarksville Mutual Telephone Company (``Clarksville Mutual'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clarksville Mutual for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clarksville Mutual's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clarksville Mutual have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.pdf
  • E. Ritter Telephone Company, and Tri-County Tel. Co., Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Telephone Co., Inc. (collectively, ``Ritter'' or ``Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ritter for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ritter's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ritter have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lamar County Cellular, Inc. (``Lamar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lamar County Cellular, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lamar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lamar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Michigan Access, Inc. (``Michigan Access'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Michigan Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Michigan Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Michigan Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Reinbeck Municipal Telecommunications Utility (``Reinbeck Municipal'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Reinbeck Municipal for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reinbeck Municipal's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Reinbeck Municipal have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and US Telesis, Inc. (``US Telesis'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against US Telesis for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding US Telesis' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and US Telesis have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.pdf
  • Released: October 5, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and Global Information Technologies (``GIT''). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bureau against GIT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (``Commission'') rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and, among other things, section 254 of the Act and section 54.712(a) of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. The Bureau and GIT have negotiated the terms of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BroadRiver Communication Corporation (``BroadRiver'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BroadRiver Communication Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BroadRiver's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BroadRiver have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and B W Telcom Long Distance (``B W Telcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B W Telcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B W Telcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B W Telcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Comteck of Indiana, Inc. (``Comteck of Indiana'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Comteck of Indiana for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Comteck of Indiana's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Comteck of Indiana have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. (``Communications 1'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications 1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Communications 1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. (``Craw-Kan'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Craw-Kan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Craw-Kan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and DTC Cable, Inc. (``DTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against DTC Cable, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and FiberComm, L.C. (``FiberComm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against FiberComm, L.C. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FiberComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and FiberComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Glenwood Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Glenwood Long Distance (``Glenwood'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Glenwood for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Glenwood's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Glenwood have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. (``Hamilton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc.'s apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Hamilton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Home Long Distance, Inc. (``Home Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Home Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Home Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Home Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the Omnibus NAL, each of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GlobalNova, Inc. (``GlobalNova'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GlobalNova for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalNova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GlobalNova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Horizon Technology (``Horizon'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Horizon Technology for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Horizon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Horizon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and KeyArt Communications, Inc. (``KeyArt'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KeyArt Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KeyArt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KeyArt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and MTC Communications, Inc. (``MTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against MTC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding MTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and MTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NNTC Wireless, LLC (``NNTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NNTC Wireless, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NNTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NNTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nunn Communications, LLC (``Nunn Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nunn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nunn Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nunn Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Phillips County Communications, LLC (``Phillips'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Phillips County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Phillips's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Phillips have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.pdf
  • ``Commission'') and Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance (``Pioneer'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pioneer's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pioneer have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Roggen Telephone Enterprises, Inc. (``RTE'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RTE for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RTE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Prairie Networks, LLC (``Prairie Networks'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Prairie Networks, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Prairie Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Prairie Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company (``Toledo'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toledo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Toledo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.pdf
  • & TV, Inc. (``Vernon Communications'' or ``Company''). Vernon Communications was formerly a subsidiary of Mutual Telephone Company. The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Vernon Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Vernon Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mutual Telephone Company, on behalf of Vernon Communications, have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and WUE, Inc. (``WUE'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against WUE, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WUE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and WUE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Andina Corporation (``Andina Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Andina Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Andina Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Andina Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Answer Fort Smith, Inc. (``Answer Fort Smith'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Answer Fort Smith for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answer Fort Smith's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Answer Fort Smith have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Korea Telecom America, Inc. (``Korea Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Korea Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Korea Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Korea Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CMOLS, LLC (``CMOLS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CMOLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMOLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CMOLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Sound of Tri-State (``Tri-State'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tri-State for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-State's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tri-State have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Bingo Consulting, LLC (``Bingo'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bingo for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bingo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bingo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Paging and Telemessaging, Inc. (``Advanced Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Airwaves Communications, Inc. (``Airwaves Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Airwaves Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Airwaves Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Airwaves Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Axxis Communications, Inc., (``Axxis Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Axxis Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Axxis Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Axxis Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dialaround Enterprises Inc. (``Dialaround''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dialaround for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Dialaround's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dialaround have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC (``River City Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against River City Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding River City Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and River City Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Western Communications Services, Inc. (``Western Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Western Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Western Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Western Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westside Paging, Inc. d/b/a Westside Communications (``Westside Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westside Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westside Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westside Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ray's Electronics, Inc. (``Ray's Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ray's Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ray's Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ray's Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Page Plus, Inc. (``Page Plus'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Page Plus for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Page Plus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Page Plus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobile Radio Communications, Inc. d/b/a MobilFone (``Mobile Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobile Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobile Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Huffman Communications (``Huffman'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Huffman for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huffman's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Huffman have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Kotana Communications, Inc. (``Kotana Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Kotana Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kotana Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Kotana Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1479A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1479A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Teleplex, Inc. d/b/a Alert Communications (``Teleplex'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Teleplex for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teleplex's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Teleplex have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Matthews Answering Service, Inc. (``Matthews Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Matthews Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Matthews Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Matthews Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lancaster Radio Paging, Inc. d/b/a Access Telecommunications Network (``Lancaster Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lancaster Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lancaster Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lancaster Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.pdf
  • or ``Commission'') and UIDC Telecom Division d/b/a Rio Networks f/k/a Rio Communications, Inc. (``Rio Networks'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Rio Networks for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Rio Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Rio Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Satellite Services, Inc. (``International Satellite Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Satellite Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Satellite Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Satellite Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westel, Inc. (``Westel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and eKit.com, Inc. (``eKit.com'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against eKit.com for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding eKit.com's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and eKit.com have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CresComm Services, Inc. d/b/a Crescent Communications Co. (``CresComm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CresComm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CresComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CresComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Alpha Message Center, Inc. (``Alpha Message'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alpha Message for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alpha Message's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Alpha Message have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clark Communications, Inc. (``Clark Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clark Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clark Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clark Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Bryan 800 Communications, Inc. (``Bryan 800'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bryan 800 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bryan 800's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bryan 800 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cottonwood Holdings Corporation d/b/a Beep West Radio Paging (``Cottonwood Holdings'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cottonwood Holdings for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cottonwood Holdings' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cottonwood Holdings have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fones West Digital Systems, Inc. d/b/a Lynx Wireless (``Fones West'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fones West for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fones West's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fones West have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Janaslani Enterprises, LLC (``Janaslani'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Janaslani Enterprises, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Janaslani's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Janaslani have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fluent Inc. (``Fluent'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fluent for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fluent's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fluent have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.pdf
  • or ``Commission'') and The Money Store, LP d/b/a The Money Box (``The Money Store'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against The Money Store for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Money Store's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and The Money Store have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and The Contact Network, Inc. d/b/a InLine (``The Contact Network'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against The Contact Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Contact Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and The Contact Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Total Communication Systems, Inc. (``Total Communication Systems'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Total Communication Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Total Communication Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Total Communication Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Basin Communications Systems, Inc. (``Basin Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Basin Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Basin Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Basin Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telstar Communications, Inc. (``Telstar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telstar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telstar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telstar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Terral Telephone Company, Inc. (``Terral Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Terral Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Terral Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Terral Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Signal Telecommunications, Inc. (``Signal Telecommunications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Signal Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Signal Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Signal Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.pdf
  • Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively ``KLM''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KLM for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding KLM's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KLM have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ninetel, Inc. (``Ninetel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ninetel, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ninetel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ninetel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Oratel, Inc. (``Oratel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Oratel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Oratel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Oratel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ONS-Telecom, LLC (``ONS-Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ONS-Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ONS-Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ONS-Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.pdf
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and David L. English d/b/a Mobile Communications Services (``David L. English'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against David L. English for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding David L. English's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and David L. English have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Communications Specialists, Inc. (``Communications Specialist'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Communications Specialist for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications Specialists' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Communications Specialists have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Flower City Paging, Inc. (``Flower City'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Flower City Paging, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Flower City's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Flower City have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and C & C Communications (``C & C'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against C & C for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding C & C's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and C & C have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.pdf
  • B & C Mobile Communications, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Mobile (``B & C Mobile'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B & C Mobile for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & C Mobile's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B & C Mobile have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Relay Communications Corporation (``Relay Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Relay Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Relay Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Relay Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Critical Alert Systems, LLC, on behalf of Aroostook Paging, Inc. (``Aroostook'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Aroostook for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Aroostook's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Aroostook have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lloyd Hoff Holding Corporation d/b/a Black Bear Paging (``Lloyd Hoff'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lloyd Hoff for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lloyd Hoff's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lloyd Hoff have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lucky Communications, Inc. (``Lucky Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lucky Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lucky Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lucky Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Quick-Tel, Inc. (``Quick-Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Quick-Tel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quick-Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Quick-Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NexGen Integrated Communications, L.L.C. (``NexGen Integrated Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NexGen Integrated Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NexGen Integrated Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NexGen Integrated Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Iscom, Inc. (``Iscom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Iscom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Iscom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Iscom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Transcard, LLC f/k/a Innovative Processing Solutions, LLC (``Innovative Processing'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Innovative Processing for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Innovative Processing's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Innovative Processing have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GlobalPhone Corp. (``GlobalPhone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GlobalPhone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalPhone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GlobalPhone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GeoNet Communications Group, Inc. (``GeoNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GeoNet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GeoNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GeoNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Gateway Wireless Services, L.C. (``Gateway Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Gateway Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Gateway Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Gateway Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and First Communications, Inc. (``First Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against First Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding First Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and First Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ezequiel Guido d/b/a E Marketing (``Ezequiel Guido'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ezequiel Guido for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ezequiel Guido's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ezequiel Guido have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Circle Telephone Company (``Circle Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Circle Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Circle Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Circle Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Carolina Mobile Communications, Ltd. (``Carolina'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Carolina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carolina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Carolina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Allcom Communications, Inc. (``Allcom Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Allcom Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Allcom Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Allcom Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.pdf
  • New Talk, Inc. (formerly known as Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get a Phone) (collectively ``New Talk''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Talk for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding New Talk's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Talk have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and World Communications, Inc. (``World Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against World Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and World Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Global Connect Telecommunications, Inc. (``Global Connect'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Global Connect for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Connect's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Global Connect have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Courtesy Communications, Inc. (``Courtesy Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Courtesy Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Courtesy Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Courtesy Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and VIP Communications, Inc. (``VIP Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against VIP Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding VIP Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and VIP Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Telnet, Inc. (``International Telnet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Telnet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Telnet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Telnet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Range Corporation d/b/a Range Telecommunications (``Range Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Range Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Range Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Range Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Madera Radio Dispatch, Inc. (``Madera Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Madera Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Madera Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Madera Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Suncoast Technology, Inc. (``Suncoast'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Suncoast Technology, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Suncoast's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Suncoast have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tri-Caps, Inc. (``Tri-Caps'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tri-Caps for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-Caps' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tri-Caps have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TTI Comm Corp. (``TTI Comm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TTI Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TTI Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TTI Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications (``Audio-Video''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Audio-Video for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Audio-Video's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Audio-Video have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Teton Communications, Inc. (``Teton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Teton for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Teton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma (``Mobile Phone of Oklahoma'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobile Phone of Oklahoma for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Phone of Oklahoma's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Chapin Long Distance, Inc. (``Chapin Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Chapin Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Chapin Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Chapin Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lunex Telecom, Inc. (``Lunex Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lunex Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lunex Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lunex Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.pdf
  • ``Commission'') and Maverick Media of Eau Claire Communications, LLC d/b/a Page Call Communications (``Maverick Media'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Maverick Media for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Maverick Media's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Maverick Media have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and McBlue Telecom, Inc. (``McBlue'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against McBlue for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding McBlue's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and McBlue have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Metro Beeper, Inc. (``Metro Beeper'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Metro Beeper for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metro Beeper's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Metro Beeper have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Milbank Communications, Inc. (``Milbank Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Milbank Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Milbank Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Milbank Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.pdf
  • or ``Commission'') and Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc. (``Cordova'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cordova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cordova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Argentina USA, Inc. (``Telecom Argentina'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telecom Argentina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telecom Argentina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telecom Argentina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and The Beeper People, Inc. d/b/a AirPage (``Beeper People'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Beeper People for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Beeper People's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Beeper People have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Texapage N.E., Inc. (``Texapage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Texapage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Texapage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Texapage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Valley Communications of Moses Lake, Inc. d/b/a Tele-Waves (``Valley Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Valley Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Valley Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Valley Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and World Communication Center, Inc. (``World Communication Center'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against World Communication Center for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communication Center's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and World Communication Center have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tim Ron Enterprises, LLC (``Tim Ron Enterprises'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tim Ron Enterprises for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tim Ron Enterprises' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tim Ron Enterprises have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.pdf
  • ``Commission'') and Radio Communications of Charleston, Inc. d/b/a FirstPage (``Radio Communications of Charleston'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Radio Communications of Charleston for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Radio Communications of Charleston's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Radio Communications of Charleston have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Wireless Telecommunications Corp. f/k/a Westar Communications, Inc. (``Westar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Leflore Communications, Inc. (``Leflore'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Leflore Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Leflore's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Leflore have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.pdf
  • X5 Solutions, X5 SLC, LLC d/b/a X5 Solutions, and X5 Solutions, Inc. (collectively, ``X5 Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against X5 Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X5 Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and X5 Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Premiere Communications Systems, Inc. (``Premiere Communications Systems'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Premiere Communications Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Premiere Communications Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Premiere Communications Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lectronics, Inc. (``Lectronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lectronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lectronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lectronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hello Pager Company, Inc. d/b/a Hello, Inc. (``Hello Pager'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Hello Pager for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hello Pager's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Hello Pager have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and RCC, Inc. d/b/a Radio-Comm Co. (``RCC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RCC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Globaltel LD, Inc. d/b/a American Roaming Network (``ARN'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ARN for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ARN's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ARN have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LaVergne's TeleMessaging, Inc. (``LaVergne's'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LaVergne's for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LaVergne's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LaVergne's have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless (``Keystone Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Keystone Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Keystone Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Keystone Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd Mobile''). On March 26, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Amp'd Mobile for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Amp'd Mobile was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Amp'd Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (``Oneida''). On March 29, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Oneida for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Oneida was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.pdf
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (``CTI''). On August 10, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to CTI for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.pdf
  • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless (``Key''). On March 28, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Key for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Key was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Mechanicsville Telephone Company (``Mechanicsville Telephone''). On July 19, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Mechanicsville Telephone for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mechanicsville Telephone was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telephone Answering Service, Inc. (``Telephone Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telephone Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telephone Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telephone Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Alaska Telecom, Inc. (``Alaska Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alaska Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alaska Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Alaska Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ATL Communications d/b/a Sunriver Telecom (``ATL Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ATL Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ATL Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ATL Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CSM Wireless, Inc. (``CSM Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CSM Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CSM Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CSM Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CTI Long Distance (``CTI Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CTI Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CTI Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CTI Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability (``NALs'') released in February, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In February, 2009, the Bureau issued to each of these companies a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture based on their apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to file a compliant CPNI certification with the Bureau. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by these
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation (``Easterbrooke Cellular''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Easterbrooke Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Easterbrooke Cellular's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Easterbrooke Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComTech21, LLC (``ComTech21'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComTech21 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech21's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComTech21 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North Bell Communications Corp. (``North Bell Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North Bell Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Bell Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and North Bell Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Go Solo Technologies (``Go Solo Technologies'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Go Solo Technologies for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go Solo Technologies' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Go Solo Technologies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CloseCall America, Inc. (``CloseCall'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CloseCall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CloseCall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CloseCall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and KK Communications, L.P. d/b/a Autophone of Laredo, LTD (``KK Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KK Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KK Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KK Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Midwestern Telecommunications, Inc. (``Midwestern'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Midwestern for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwestern's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Midwestern have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Com-Nav, Inc. d/b/a Radio Telephone of Maine (``Com-Nav'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Com-Nav for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Com-Nav's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Com-Nav have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cook Telecom, Inc. (``Cook Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cook Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cook Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cook Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and 01 Communications, Inc. (``01 Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against [Company name] for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 01 Communication's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and 01 Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Manchester-Hartland Telephone Co. (``Manchester-Hartland'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Manchester-Hartland for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Manchester-Hartland's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Manchester-Hartland have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Midwest Management, Inc. -- Consolidated (``Midwest Management'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Midwest Management for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwest Management's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Midwest Management have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ProPage, Inc. (``ProPage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ProPage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ProPage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ProPage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Standard Electronics West, Inc. d/b/a ALLPAGE (``Standard Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Standard Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Standard Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Standard Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and X2 Comm, Inc. d/b/a DC Communications (``X2 Comm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against X2 Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X2 Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and X2 Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nova Cellular West, Inc. d/b/a San Diego Wireless (``Nova Cellular'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nova Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nova Cellular's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nova Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Pete's Communications, Inc. (``Pete's Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pete's Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pete's Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pete's Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Omnicom Paging Plus, LLC (``Omnicom Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Omnicom Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Omnicom Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Omnicom Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North Sight Communications, Inc. (``North Sight Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North Sight Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Sight Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and North Sight Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Go2tel.com, Inc. (``Go2tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Go2tel.com, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go2tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Go2tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and FullTel, Inc. (``FullTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against FullTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FullTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and FullTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tel Tec, Inc. (``Tel Tec'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tel Tec for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tel Tec's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tel Tec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tularosa Communications, Inc. (``Tularosa'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tularosa Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tularosa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tularosa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC (``LTS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LTS's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC (``Magellan'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Magellan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Magellan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and American Page Network (``American Page Network'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against American Page Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding American Page Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and American Page Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ruddata Corporation d/b/a VCI Internet Service (``Ruddata'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ruddata for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ruddata's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ruddata have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele-Beep Paging Co. (``Tele-Beep Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele-Beep Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele-Beep Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele-Beep Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TRI-M Communications, Inc. (``TRI-M Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TRI-M Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TRI-M Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TRI-M Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mountain Paging Network, Inc. (``Mountain Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mountain Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mountain Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dixie-Net Communications (``Dixie-Net'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dixie-Net for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dixie-Net's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dixie-Net have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Litecall, Inc. (``Litecall'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Litecall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Litecall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Litecall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BendTel d/b/a Bend Data Center (``BendTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BendTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BendTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BendTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Biddeford Internet Corporation d/b/a Great Works Internet (``Biddeford'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Biddeford for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Biddeford's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Biddeford have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TelNet Worldwide, Inc. (``TelNet Worldwide'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TelNet Worldwide for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelNet Worldwide's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TelNet Worldwide have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Web Fire Communications, Inc. (``Web Fire'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Web Fire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Web Fire's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Web Fire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.pdf
  • and Sagir, Inc. d/b/a Indigo Wireless and Americell PA3, LP d/b/a Indigo Wireless (``Indigo Wireless'' or ``Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Indigo Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Indigo Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Indigo Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Raycom Electronics, Inc. (``Raycom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Raycom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Raycom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Raycom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.pdf
  • ``Commission'') and T/A Apartment Services, Inc. d/b/a Off Campus Telecommunications, Inc. (``T/A Apartment Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against T/A Apartment Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding T/A Apartment Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and T/A Apartment Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Shorelink Communications Corp. (``Shorelink'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Shorelink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Shorelink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Shorelink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services (``General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and St. Olaf College (``St. Olaf'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against St. Olaf for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding St. Olaf's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and St. Olaf have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Outfitter Satellite, Inc. (``Outfitter Satellite'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Outfitter Satellite for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Outfitter Satellite's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Outfitter Satellite have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and A.M.S. Voicecom, Inc. (``A.M.S. Voicecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against A.M.S. Voicecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A.M.S. Voicecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and A.M.S. Voicecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Sumrada Communications Service, Inc. (``Sumrada'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Sumrada for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Sumrada's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Sumrada have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Huntleigh Telecommunications Group, Inc. (``Huntleigh Telecommunications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Huntleigh Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huntleigh Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Huntleigh Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Corporate Networking, Inc., (``Advanced'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Corporate Networking for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Answerphone Services, Inc. d/b/a Direct Page Communications (``Answerphone Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Answerphone Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answerphone Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Answerphone Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.pdf
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Utility Telephone, Inc. and Anew Telecommunications d/b/a Call America (jointly, ``Utility'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Utility for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Utility's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Utility have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.pdf
  • Inc. d/b/a Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. and Reserve Long Distance Company, Inc. (jointly, ``Reserve Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Reserve Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reserve Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Reserve Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.pdf
  • Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company (``Bluegrass'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bluegrass's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bluegrass have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and 3U Telecom, Inc. (``3U Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against 3U Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 3U Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and 3U Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobilephone of Humboldt, Inc. (``Mobilephone of Humboldt'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobilephone of Humboldt for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilephone of Humboldt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobilephone of Humboldt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ImOn Communications, LLC (``ImOn'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ImOn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ImOn's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ImOn have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Professional Answering Service, Inc. (``Professional Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Professional Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Professional Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Professional Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and User Centric Communications, Inc. (``User Centric'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against User Centric for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding User Centric's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and User Centric have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Custom Tel, LLC (``Custom Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Custom Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Custom Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Custom Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Global Tech Telecommunications, Inc. (``Global Tech'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Global Tech for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Tech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Global Tech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and HUB Communications, Inc. (``HUB Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against HUB Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding HUB Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and HUB Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mountain Communications and Electronics, Inc. (``Mountain Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mountain Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mountain Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telegration, Inc. (``Telegration'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telegration for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telegration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telegration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.pdf
  • adopting the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification, and formally terminating the above-captioned Investigations. ``Parties'' means AT&T and the Bureau, each of which is a ``Party.'' ``Rules'' means those rules and regulations codified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. III. BACKGROUND Investigation EB-09-TC-382 3. On June 1, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, AT&T filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') opt-out mechanism. According to AT&T, the CPNI toll-free number used by small business customers to opt-out was mistakenly disconnected. AT&T reported that when small business customers called the toll-free number during business hours, they were automatically routed to a call
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Parker FiberNet, LLC (``Parker FiberNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Parker FiberNet, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Parker FiberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Parker FiberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CP Telecom Inc. f/k/a ComputerPro, Inc. (``ComputerPro'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComputerPro for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComputerPro's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComputerPro have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Unitycomm, LLC d/b/a U4Com (``Unitycomm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Unitycomm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Unitycomm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Unitycomm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.pdf
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and A & W Communications, Inc. (``A & W Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against A & W Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A & W Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and A & W Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Kelley's Tele-Communications, Inc. (``Kelley's Tele-Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Kelley's Tele-Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kelley's Tele-Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Kelley's Tele-Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobilpage, Inc. (``Mobilpage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobilpage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilpage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobilpage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Paxx Telecom, LLC (``Paxx Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Paxx Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Paxx Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Paxx Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dunnell Tel. Co. (``Dunnell'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dunnell for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dunnell's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dunnell have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and New Start Communication Corp. (``New Start'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Start for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Start's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Start have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.pdf
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). BACKGROUND Section
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.pdf
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). BACKGROUND Section
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.pdf
  • North American Numbering Plan (``NANP'') and Local Number Portability (``LNP'') administration; and the submission of information as set forth on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q). The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSpan for possible violations of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSpan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. The Bureau and ComSpan have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. (``HBC''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against HBC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding HBC's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and HBC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. (``Shoreham''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Shoreham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Shoreham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.pdf
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Voip Alliance, LLC (``Voip Alliance''). Voip Alliance has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Voip Alliance is a prepaid calling card provider located in McAllen, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Voip Alliance is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Touch-Tel USA, LLC (``Touch-Tel USA''). Touch-Tel USA has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Touch-Tel USA is a prepaid calling card provider located in Houston, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Touch-Tel USA is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Phone Club Corporation (``Phone Club''). Phone Club has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Phone Club is a reseller of local and long distance telecommunications services located in Miami, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Phone Club is subject to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.pdf
  • the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina (``Nu Era Telecom''). Nu Era Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Nu Era Telecom is an interexchange telecommunications carrier located in Miami Beach, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Nu Era Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. (``DigitGlobal Communications''). DigitGlobal Communications has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. DigitGlobal Communications is a telecommunications carrier located in Kew Gardens, New York. As a telecommunications carrier, DigitGlobal Communications is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.pdf
  • 9, 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com (``Straightel''). Straightel has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Straightel is a Voice over Internet Protocol (``VoIP'') and prepaid calling card carrier located in Miramar, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Straightel is subject to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Communications, Inc. (``Southwest Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Southwest Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LGT - Latin Global Telecom, LLC (``LGT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LGT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LGT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LGT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.pdf
  • Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely and/or compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CCI Network Services, LLC (``CCI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Public Service Communications, Inc. (``Public Service Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Public Service Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Public Service Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Public Service Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Toly Digital Network, Inc. (``Toly Digital'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Toly Digital for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toly Digital's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Toly Digital have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Business Integration Network (``Advance Business Integration'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Business Integration Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Business Integration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced Business Integration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Call-O-Call, Inc. (``Call-O-Call'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Call-O-Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call-O-Call's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Call-O-Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and AccessCom, Inc. (``AccessCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against AccessCom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AccessCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and AccessCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.pdf
  • follows upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Dezco Communications, Inc. (``Dezco Communications''). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Dezco Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Dezco Communications was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.pdf
  • Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Galaxy Internet Services, Inc.. (``Galaxy Internet Services''). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Galaxy Internet Services apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Galaxy Internet Services was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and New Bridge Technologies, Inc. (``New Bridge'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Bridge for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Bridge's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Bridge have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ValuTel Communications, Inc. (``ValuTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ValuTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ValuTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ValuTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Saving Call, LLC (``Saving Call'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Saving Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Saving Call's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Saving Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telebeep, Inc. (``Telebeep'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telebeep for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telebeep's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telebeep have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Accutel of Texas, LP (``Accutel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Accutel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Accutel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Accutel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Revolution Communications Company, LTD (``Revolution Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Revolution Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Revolution Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Revolution Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Crossfire Telecommunications, LLC (``Crossfire'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Crossfire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Crossfire's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Crossfire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.pdf
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Multi Voice, Inc. (``Multi Voice'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Multi Voice for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Multi Voice's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Multi Voice have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NTS Services Corp. (``NTS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NTS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NTS's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lyca Tel, LLC (``Lyca Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lyca Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lyca Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lyca Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.pdf
  • for Forfeiture of February 18, 2008, we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Blue Casa Communications, Inc. d/b/a Blue Casa Communications, LLC (Blue Casa or Company). In the Omnibus NAL, we found Blue Casa apparently liable for a forfeiture for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we found
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.pdf
  • upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc. (Intercel or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Intercel apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Intercel was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.pdf
  • a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 28, 2011 by Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot (``Think 12''). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for Think 12's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. Background Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois that resells interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of section 222 of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clon Communications, LLC (``Clon'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clon for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Royal Phone Company, LLC (``Royal Phone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Royal Phone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Royal Phone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Royal Phone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.pdf
  • Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. (Unitec or Company). In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or the Communications Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.pdf
  • Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Franz, Inc. d/b/a Telelight, Inc. (``Franz'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Franz for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Franz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Franz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CyberNet Communications, Inc. (``CyberNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CyberNet Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CyberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CyberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Davidson Telecom, LLC (``Davidson'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Davidson Telecom, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Davidson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Davidson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Central Communications Service Co. (``Central Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Central Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Central Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Central Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Access, Inc. (``International Access'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $29,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2008 and 2009. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine North, Inc. (``NationsLine North'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine North for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine North's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine North have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine Delaware, Inc. (``NationsLine Delaware'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine Delaware for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Delaware's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine Delaware have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Atlantic Telecom, Inc. (``Atlantic Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Atlantic Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Atlantic Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Atlantic Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine District of Columbia, Inc. (``NationsLine DC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine DC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine DC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine DC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine Virginia, Inc. (``NationsLine Virginia'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine Virginia for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Virginia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine Virginia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine, Inc. (``NationsLine'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.pdf
  • and Advantage Wireless Communications, Inc. d/b/a Almar Communications and Blackhawk Communications (``Advantage Wireless Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advantage Wireless Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advantage Wireless Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advantage Wireless Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Delta Telecom, Inc. (``Delta Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Delta Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Delta Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Delta Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Coast International, Inc. (``Coast International'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Coast International for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Coast International's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Coast International have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cyber Mesa Computer Systems, Inc. (``Cyber Mesa'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cyber Mesa for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cyber Mesa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cyber Mesa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. (``DNA'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DNA's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DNA have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Simplink Corporation (``Simplink'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Simplink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Simplink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Simplink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NET/COMM Services, Corp. (``NET/COMM Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NET/COMM Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NET/COMM Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NET/COMM Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. (``TelePlus'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelePlus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TelePlus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Pacific Telecom Services, Inc. (``Pacific Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pacific Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pacific Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pacific Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PR Wireless, Inc. d/b/a OPEN Mobile (``PR Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PR Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PR Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PR Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PiperTel Communications, LLC (``PiperTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PiperTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PiperTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PiperTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Network Services Solutions, LLC (``Network Services Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Network Services Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Network Services Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Network Services Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Internet & Telephone, LLC (``Internet & Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Internet & Telephone, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Internet & Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Internet & Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NetSpan Corporation d/b/a Foremost Telecommunications (``NetSpan Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NetSpan Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NetSpan Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NetSpan Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and China Unicom (Americas) Operations Ltd. Corporation (``China Unicom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against China Unicom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding China Unicom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and China Unicom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.pdf
  • Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot (``Think 12'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois providing resold interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North County Communications Corp. (``NCCC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North County Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NCCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.pdf
  • Appendix I FRN: See Appendix I OMNIBUS NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: February 25, 2011 Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I (``the Companies''), have apparently willfully and repeatedly violated (1) section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') rules by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, and (2) an Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') order by failing to provide certain information regarding their CPNI filings. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding both apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Association Administrators, Inc. (``Association Administrators'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Association Administrators for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Association Administrators' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Association Administrators have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ring Connection, Inc. (``Ring Connection'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ring Connection for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ring Connection's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ring Connection have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Consultants, Inc. (``TCI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.pdf
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nationwide Telecom, Inc. (``Nationwide Telecom'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Nationwide Telecom is a telecommunications carrier located in West Hills, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Nationwide Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.pdf
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Calmtel USA, Inc. (``Calmtel USA'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Calmtel USA is a telecommunications carrier located in Los Angeles, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Calmtel USA is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.pdf
  • 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Diamond Phone Card, Inc. (``Diamond Phone'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Diamond Phone is a telecommunications carrier located in Elmhurst, New York providing prepaid phone card services. As a telecommunications carrier, Diamond Phone is subject to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.pdf
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against USA Teleport, Inc. (``USA Teleport'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. USA Teleport is a telecommunications carrier located in North Miami Beach, Florida providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USA Teleport is subject to the requirements
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Integrated Telemanagement Services, Inc. d/b/a OMNICOM (``Integrated Telemanagement'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Integrated Telemanagement for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Integrated Telemanagement's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Integrated Telemanagement have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.pdf
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele Circuit Network Corporation (``Tele Circuit'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele Circuit for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Circuit's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele Circuit have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.pdf
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westgate Communications, LLC d/b/a WeavTel (``Westgate Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westgate Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westgate Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westgate Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.pdf
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ZTG, Inc. (``ZTG'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ZTG for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ZTG's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ZTG have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.pdf
  • and United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One (``Call One'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call One's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Call One have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.pdf
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. (``Telestar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telestar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telestar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Latino Communications Corp. (``Latino Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Latino Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Latino Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Latino Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Team Electronics, Inc. (``Team Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Team Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Team Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Team Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.pdf
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Neutral Tandem, Inc. (``Neutral'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Neutral Tandem for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Neutral's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Neutral have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.pdf
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.pdf
  • the Commission's rules, we deny a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 8, 2011, by USA Teleport, Inc. (``USAT''). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for USTA's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; paragraphs 51 and 53 of the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. Background USAT is a telecommunications carrier, located in North Miami Beach, Florida, that provides interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USAT is subject to the requirements
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Metronet Telecom, Inc. (``Metronet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Metronet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metronet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Metronet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.pdf
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.pdf
  • 2011 Released: June 6, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against 88 Telecom Corporation (``88 Telecom''). 88 Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 88 Telecom is a prepaid calling card telecommunications carrier located in San Francisco, California. As a telecommunications carrier, 88 Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.pdf
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.pdf
  • and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning various regulatory fee and reporting obligations as well as required contributions to the Universal Service Fund, the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, and the North American Numbering Plan and Local Number Portability administration. The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation by the Bureau into possible violations of Section 222 of the Act, Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order regarding BSCI's customer proprietary network information obligations. A copy of the Consent Decree negotiated by the Bureau and BSCI is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be served by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.pdf
  • between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Ztar Mobile, Inc. (Ztar). The Consent Decree resolves and terminates the Bureau's investigations into Ztar's compliance with Section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning the deployment of digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets and with Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the EPIC CPNI Order, concerning the filing of an annual Customer Proprietary Network Information certification. The Bureau and Ztar have negotiated the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that DataFind.org may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 14, 2005, your counsel requested via email additional time, until December 23, 2005, to respond to the questions contained in the subpoena. To date, we have not received
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that LocateCell.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 16, 2005, your counsel provided a partial response to several of the questions contained in the subpoena and indicated that you would provide additional responses to other questions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.txt
  • Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that your company may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any response to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via hand-delivery. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Onlinepi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. You requested two extensions of time in which to respond, and we granted both requests, extending the response date to February 21, 2006. To date, we have not received any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1432A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via hand-delivery. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Usaskiptrace.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any responses to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Matecheckpi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any responses to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1641A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: August 17, 2006 Released: August 18, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau and Alltel Corporation (``Alltel''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against Alltel for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Enforcement Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be served by adopting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-220A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-058 NAL/Acct. No. 200632170002 FRN: 0012757787 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Alltel Corporation (``Alltel'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-221A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-059 NAL/Acct. No. 200632170003 FRN: 0004305124 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that AT&T Inc. (``AT&T'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-258A1.txt
  • about the safeguards employed by the companies handling their private information and contacted the Bureau seeking information about the CPNI compliance certifications. Opening a new docket will enable the public to more easily access these carrier certificates. Carrier compliance certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Any CPNI compliance certifications already filed electronically with the Commission will be moved to the new docket by Commission staff. Carriers do not need to re-file their certifications. Filing Procedures (ECFS), or (2) by filing paper copies. See Electronic
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-916A1.txt
  • 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, and in particular the serious consequences that may flow from inadequate concern for and protection of CPNI, we propose a monetary forfeiture of $100,000 against Cbeyond for its apparent failure to comply with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the CPNI Order. BACKGROUND Based on concerns regarding the apparent availability to third parties of sensitive, personal subscriber information the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') has been investigating the adequacy of procedures implemented by telecommunications carriers to ensure confidentiality of their subscribers' CPNI. For example, companies known as ``data brokers'' have advertised the availability of records
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4507 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170011 FRN: 0014731822 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd'' or ``Amp'd Mobile'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the subpart governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.txt
  • 0003772274 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that KLM Telephone Company, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively ``KLM''), apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he had personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.txt
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4261 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170035 FRN:0001544790 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation, (``Easterbrooke Cellular'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1410A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4745 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170032 FRN: 0005413463 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 28, 2007 Released: March 28, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless (``Key'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1411A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4497 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0042 FRN: 0006149223 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 28, 2007 Released: March 28, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. (``HBC'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.txt
  • Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4483 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0037 FRN: 0005013669 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that CTC Communications Corporation (``CTC'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4500 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0038 FRN 0004380200 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. (``Shoreham'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its CPNI compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules regarding the use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.txt
  • for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4496 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170055 FRN: 0004272373 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-3411 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170023 FRN: 0004337218 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (``Oneida'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its annual certification explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1416A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4174 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170033 FRN: 0007415706 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 28, 2007 Released: March 28, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless (``Keystone Wireless '') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.txt
  • call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.txt
  • directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). On January 27, 2007, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Burke's Garden directing Burke's Garden to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Burke's Garden for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Burke's Garden filed a response to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4518 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0041 FRN: 0003748340 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Mechanicsville Telephone Company (``Mechanicsville Telephone'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an annual certificate signed by a corporate officer stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4111 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170017 FRN: 0003765740 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a/ A-1 Communications (``Audio-Video'' ) apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.txt
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry (``LOIs'') to several carriers, including Connect, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Connect did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to Connect for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On April 27, 2007, Connect submitted several documents in response to the NAL, including a letter from its President, Byron T. Young, which explains, among
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4731 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170054 FRN: 0013394028 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone (``Connect'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.txt
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry (``LOIs'') to several carriers, including PhoneCo, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. PhoneCo did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to PhoneCo for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On June 27, 2007, PhoneCo submitted a response to the NAL, which explains the Company's reasons for failing to respond to the LOI. PhoneCo states
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.txt
  • Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-4006 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0076 FRN: 0003743119 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (``CTI'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-6030 NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0009 FRN: 0007704166 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC (``River City Wireless'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3812A1.txt
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and AT&T Inc. (``AT&T''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') regarding AT&T Corp.'s compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a). The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.txt
  • Liberty Phones is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. BACKGROUND Liberty Phones, an Arkansas-based company authorized to provide local and interexchange telecommunications services since 2002, provides prepaid residential and small business telephone service. On February 6, 2006, Liberty Phones submitted to the Bureau a Certificate of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') filing pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Upon checking, Bureau staff learned there was no record of Liberty Phones registering with the Commission or submitting Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (FCC Form 499) to the Universal Service Administrative Company (``USAC''), or making associated payments to the requisite federal regulatory programs. On May 31, 2007, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (``LOI'') to Liberty Phones
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4090A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') adopts the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and Cbeyond Communications, Inc. (``Cbeyond''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against Cbeyond for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act'') and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Consent decree terminates an investigation into Cbeyond's compliance with section 64.2007(a)(3) of the Commission's rules regarding customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). The Bureau and Cbeyond have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Based on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-3543 NAL/Acct. No. 20083217 0003 FRN: 0004938064 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 29, 2007 Released: November 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. (``Dialaround'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1321A1.pdf
  • customer's CPNIobtained by a telecommunications carrier must remain in effect until the customer revokes or limits such approval or disapproval.[47 C.F.R. § 64.2007] ÿTraining and express disciplinary process in place oTelecommunications carriers must train their personnel as to when theyare and are not authorized to use CPNI, and carriers must have an express disciplinary process in place. [47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(b)] B. Notification Requirements ÿNotification to law enforcement of breach oA telecommunications carrier shall notifylaw enforcement of a breach of its customers' CPNI. The carrier shall not notifyits customers or disclose the breach publicly, whether voluntarilyor under state or local law or the Commission's rules, until it has completed the process of notifying law enforcement. oAs soon as practicable, and in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-171A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit | P DA 08-171 January 29, 2008 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (``CPNI Certifications'') pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed no later than March 1, 2008, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.txt
  • based on the caller's location. E911 also provides the call taker with the caller's call back number ... and in many cases, location information....'' Id. at 10251 ¶13 (footnotes omitted). See id. at 10246 n.2 (citing examples of VoIP customers futilely attempting to call 911 during emergency situations). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.20000 - 1.20008. See id. §§ 64.2001 - 64.2009. See id. §§ 64.601 - 64.608. See id. §§ 6.1 - 6.23 and §§ 7.1 - 7.23. See id. §§ 52.20 - 52.33 See id. § 54.706. See id. § 64.604. See id. § 52.17. See id. § 52.32. See id. § 64.1195. Id. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920 Federal Communications Commission DA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-404A1.txt
  • into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CTC Communications Corp. (``CTC''). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against CTC for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTC have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.txt
  • to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). On December 5, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Manning directing Manning to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Manning for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Manning filed responses to the NAL on May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.txt
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). 2. On December 12, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Habla directing Habla to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Habla for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. The NAL was sent by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1581A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Wilson Communication Company, Inc. (``Wilson'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Wilson for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Wilson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Wilson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1583A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and WTC Communications, Inc. (``WTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against WTC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and WTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1586A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clearcom, Inc. (``Clearcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clearcom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clearcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clearcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1587A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Supply, Inc. (``TSI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telecom Supply, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TSI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1590A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CenCom, Inc. (``CenCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CenCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CenCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CenCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1591A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComSouth Telenet, Inc. (``ComSouth'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSouth Telenet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170168 FRN: 0005013699 ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. (``@Communications'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On September 2, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to @Communications asking @Communications whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for the calendar
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.txt
  • No. 200932170102 FRN: 0004272373 ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 29, 2008, PriorityOne filed a certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules with the Commission's Secretary. In reviewing the certifications filed, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1599A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. (``ComSouth'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1600A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComTech Solutions, LLC (``ComTech'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComTech Solutions, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComTech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1601A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. (``Nebraska'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nebraska's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nebraska have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1602A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Stanton Long Distance, LLC (``Stanton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Stanton Long Distance, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Stanton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Stanton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1604A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC (``NLD'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NLD's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NLD have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1606A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ligtel Communications, Inc. (``Ligtel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ligtel Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ligtel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ligtel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1607A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Texas Long Distance Company (``Southwest'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Texas Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Southwest have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1609A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. (``TCB'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCB's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TCB have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1610A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and RTC Communications Corp. (``RTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RTC Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1611A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Smithville Telecom, Inc. (``Smithville'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Smithville Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Smithville's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Smithville have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1612A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ASTAC Long Distance (``ASTAC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ASTAC Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ASTAC Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ASTAC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1613A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. (``Family Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Family Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Family Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.txt
  • 200932170299 FRN: 0002381873 ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 6, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville (``Naperville'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Naperville a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.txt
  • FRN: 0018509778 ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 5, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. (``Sweetser'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Sweetser a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1616A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clay County Communications, LLC (``Clay County'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clay County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clay County's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clay County have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1617A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. (``Giles-Craig'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Giles-Craig's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Giles-Craig have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.txt
  • 200932170783 FRN: 0005024641 ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. (``TCO Network'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On September 5, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to TCO Network asking TCO Network whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. (``Hinton'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Hinton a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.txt
  • No. 200932170825 FRN: 0010103497 ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.txt
  • No. 200932170086 FRN: 0005075403 ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction and Background In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. (``Momentum'') for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Momentum a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1627A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Evertek, Inc. (``Evertek'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Evertek, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Evertek's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Evertek have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1628A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Topsham Communications, LLC (``Topsham'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Topsham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Topsham's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Topsham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1632A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications (``B & B Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B & B Communications Network, Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & B Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B & B Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1633A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GBT Communications, Inc. (``GBT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GBT Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GBT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GBT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1634A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. (``Cedar-Wapsie'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cedar-Wapsie's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cedar-Wapsie have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1635A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NMRSA6-III Partnership (``NMRSA6-III'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NMRSA6-III Partnership for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NMRSA6-III's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NMRSA6-III have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1636A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. (``SOTI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SOTI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and SOTI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1637A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Peetz Communications, LLC (``Peetz'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Peetz Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Peetz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Peetz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1638A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Northeast Competitive Access Provider (``NCAP'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Northeast Competitive Access Provider for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCAP's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NCAP have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1639A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Carr Communications, Inc. (``Carr'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Carr Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carr's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Carr have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1640A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. (``Ogden'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ogden's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ogden have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1641A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westphalia Communications, Inc. (``Westphalia'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westphalia Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westphalia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westphalia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1642A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and SpringCom, Inc. (``SpringCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against SpringCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SpringCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and SpringCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-16A1.txt
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and AT&T, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates (collectively ``AT&T'' or ``the AT&T Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Bureau against the AT&T Companies for possible violation of section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(3)(ii), 64.2008(d)(3)(v) and 64.2009(a) of the Federal Communication Commission's (``Commission'') rules relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and sections 201(b) and 254 of the Act, and sections 54.712(a), 69.131 and 69.158 of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. The Bureau and the AT&T Companies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1709A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fort Mojave Television, Inc. (``Fort Mojave'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fort Mojave Television, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fort Mojave's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fort Mojave have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1742A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and AP&T Wireless, Inc. (``AP&T'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against AP&T Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AP&T's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and AP&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1743A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Falcon1, Inc. (``Falcon1'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Falcon1 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Falcon1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Falcon1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1744A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TSC Communications, Inc. (``TSC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TSC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TSC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.txt
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad, Inc. (``Cellular Abroad''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Cellular Abroad a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Cellular Abroad's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Cellular Abroad, we agree with Cellular Abroad that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Cellular Abroad is not a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The City of Daytona Beach (``Daytona Beach''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Daytona Beach a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Daytona Beach's apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Daytona Beach, we agree with Daytona Beach that Daytona Beach was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due. Accordingly, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.txt
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC (``Nebraska Supercomm''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Nebraska Supercomm a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Nebraska Supercomm's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon new information provided by Nebraska Supercomm, we agree with Nebraska Supercomm that it did not have any telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.txt
  • Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. (``Pilgrim''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Pilgrim a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Pilgrim's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Pilgrim, we agree with Pilgrim that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. During the 2007 calendar year, Pilgrim was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.txt
  • Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. (``Visionary''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Visionary a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Visionary's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Visionary, we agree with Visionary that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Visionary is not a telecommunications carrier, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc (``Zicore''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Zicore a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Zicore's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Zicore, we agree with Zicore that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.txt
  • Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc (``Isan''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Isan a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Isan's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Isan, we agree with Isan that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC (``Plains''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Plains a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Plains' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Plains, we agree with Plains that it had timely filed its CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound (``Orange''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Orange a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Orange's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Orange, we agree with Orange that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007 was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. (``Freedom''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Freedom's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Freedom, we agree with Freedom that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007 was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.txt
  • this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company (``Allendale''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Allendale a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Allendale's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Allendale, we agree with Allendale that it had timely filed its annual CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not violate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.txt
  • In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated (``Worldwide Marketing''). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Worldwide Marketing a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Worldwide Marketing's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Worldwide Marketing, we agree with Worldwide Marketing that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance (``Clarks''). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Clarks a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL'') based on Clarks' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Clarks, we agree with Clarks that it was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due because it ceased offering telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-240A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit € D T DA 09-240 February 13, 2009 Enforcement Bureau Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) again reminds all companies subject to its CPNI rules of their obligation to file their CPNI Certification no later than March 1, 2009. Certifications must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided below. Background. On April 2, 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.txt
  • 200932170027 FRN: 0017197344 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Big Telephone, Inc. (``Big Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Big Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.txt
  • XXXX NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. (``Ben Lomand Rural'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand Rural is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.txt
  • No. 200932170025 FRN: 0003729142 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ben Lomand Communications, LLC (``Ben Lomand'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170024 FRN: 0017992298 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Bellvoz Corp. (``Bellvoz'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bellvoz is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.txt
  • 200932170023 FRN: 0004056602 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Bee Line Cable (``Bee Line'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bee Line is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170022 FRN: 0003802204 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc.(``Atlantic'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Atlantic is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., (``American Fiber'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that American Fiber is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.txt
  • No. 200932170018 FRN: 0004914909 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Action Communications, Inc. (``Action'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Action is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.txt
  • 001380018 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that 800 Response Information Services LLC (``800 Response'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that 800 Response is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.txt
  • No. 200932170029 FRN: 0004319406 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. (``Buckeye'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Buckeye is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.txt
  • No. 200932170030 FRN: 0003723061 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Cherokee Telephone Company (``Cherokee'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cherokee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.txt
  • FRN: 0007408073 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that China Telecom (Americas) Corporation (``China Telecom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that China Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.txt
  • FRN: 0004375184 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom (``Communications Venture'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Communications Venture is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.txt
  • FRN: 0015250202 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications (``Aquis'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Aquis is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.txt
  • 200932170039 FRN: 0003742467 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Consolidated Telephone Company (``Consolidated Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Consolidated Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.txt
  • FRN: 0003736360 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Clear World Communications Corporation (``Clear World'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clear World is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.txt
  • No. 200932170042 FRN: 0011443066 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. (``D.G.A.'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that D.G.A. is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.txt
  • No. 200932170072 FRN: 0017399262 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Isan Telecom, Inc. (``Isan'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Isan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.txt
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC (``Tennessee'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Tennessee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging (``Kitchen Productions'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Kitchen Productions is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.txt
  • FRN: 0002323731 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. (``KanOkla Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that KanOkla Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170077 FRN: 0017294992 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Latino Telecom, Inc. (``Latino Telecom'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Latino Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.txt
  • No. 200932170130 FRN: 0006357826 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Threshold Communications, Inc. (``Threshold'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Threshold is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.txt
  • No. 200932170078 FRN: 0005413042 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Leflore Communications, Inc. (``Leflore'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Leflore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. (``Legacy Long Distance'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Legacy Long Distance is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.txt
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. (``M & L Enterprises'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that M & L Enterprises is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.txt
  • FRN: 0017410390 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC (``Liberty'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Liberty is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One (``Call One'') or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Call One is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.txt
  • 200932170082 FRN: 0017194317 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that McClure Telephone Company (``McClure Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that McClure Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.txt
  • 0003737137 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that VDL, Inc. d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers (``VDL'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that VDL is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.txt
  • 0016201642 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe (``Broadstripe'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Broadstripe is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170138 FRN: 0010827806 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Volunteer First Services, LLC (``Volunteer'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Volunteer is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.txt
  • No. 200932170085 FRN: 0007116403 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Commnet Wireless, LLC (``Commnet'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Commnet is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170086 FRN: 0005075403 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find Momentum Telecom, Inc. (``Momentum'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Momentum is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.txt
  • FRN: 0017238452 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated (``Worldwide Marketing'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Worldwide Marketing is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.txt
  • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. (``Angel Communications'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Angel Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Data Radio Management Company, Inc. (``Data Radio Management'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Data Radio Management is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.txt
  • No. 200932170142 FRN: 0004921219 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find the Scott C. MacIntyre (``MacIntyre'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that MacIntyre is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.txt
  • 0002775765 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Edward Adams Associates, Inc. (``Edward Adams Associates'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Edward Adams Associates is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.txt
  • No. 200932170145 FRN: 0011476751 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Zicore Services, Inc. (``Zicore'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Zicore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170148 FRN: 0009809278 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that SI2Way, Inc. (``SI2Way'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SI2Way is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170149 FRN: 0002696300 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Wayne Frank (``Frank'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Frank is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.txt
  • No. 200932170152 FRN: 0005030630 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that James T. Hopper (``Hopper'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hopper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.txt
  • EB-09-TC-194 NAL/Acct. No. 200932170153 FRN: 0005027701 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Arthur N. Sherman (``Sherman'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sherman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.txt
  • FRN: 0001611110 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. (``Telebeeper'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telebeeper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.txt
  • 200932170155 FRN: 0003965514 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find That Clifford E. Bade (``Clifford Bade'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clifford Bade is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.txt
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company (``National Brands'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that National Brands is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170091 FRN: 0005043195 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Netcarrier Telecom, Inc.(``Netcarrier'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Netcarrier is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.txt
  • 200932170092 FRN: 0010737641 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Network Innovations, Inc. (``Network Innovations'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Network Innovations is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.txt
  • No. 200932170094 FRN: 0004311809 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Nunn Telephone Company (``Nunn'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Nunn is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.txt
  • 200932170095 FRN: 0005605688 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that O. Richard Knutson (``O.R. Knutson'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that O.R. Knutson is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.txt
  • No. 200932170096 FRN: 0017064544 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that One Touch India LLC (``One Touch'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that One Touch is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom(``Phillips County'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Phillips County is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.txt
  • FRN: 0009783093 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Prime Time Ventures (``Prime Time Ventures'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Prime Time Ventures is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.txt
  • No. 200932170102 FRN: 0004272373 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that PriorityOne is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.txt
  • No. 200932170103 FRN: 0002317725 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that ProCom LMR, Inc. (``ProCom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ProCom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.txt
  • No. 200932170104 FRN: 0005814157 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find the Protek Leasing Corp. (``Protek'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Protek is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.txt
  • No. 200932170044 FRN: 0010393882 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that DAR Communications Corporation (``DAR'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that DAR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.txt
  • FRN: 0003736188 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. (``Santa Rosa'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.txt
  • 0005063615 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (``Santa Rosa'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.txt
  • 200932170111 FRN: 0003758877 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. (``Santel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.txt
  • No. 200932170112 FRN: 0017217548 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Securetel Network Inc. (``Securetel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Securetel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.txt
  • 200932170114 FRN: 0014198253 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. (``Shreveport'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Shreveport is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-364A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No.200932170045 FRN: 0008694853 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Desktop Media, Inc. (``Desktop'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Desktop is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.txt
  • 200932170048 FRN: 0005093372 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Dixville Telephone Company (``Dixville Telephone'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Dixville Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.txt
  • 0017199878 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that E & F Telecom, Inc. (``E & F Telecom'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that E & F Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.txt
  • 0013321211 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, (``Eastern Colorado'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Eastern Colorado is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170052 FRN: 0004999223 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that EGIX, Inc. (``EGIX'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that EGIX is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.txt
  • 001776457 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that South Central Wireless, Inc, dba SCTelcom (``SCTelcom'') or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SCTelcom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.txt
  • 0018509752 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. (``Specialized Mobile Radio'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Specialized Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.txt
  • No. 200932170225 FRN: 0018509133 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that BKT Telecom Corp. (``BKT'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that BKT is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.txt
  • 0004330130 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies (``First Mile'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that First Mile is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.txt
  • No. 200932170057 FRN: 0003770773 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Gabriel Wireless, LLC (``Gabriel'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Gabriel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.txt
  • FRN: 0009725748 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that T2 Communications, LLC (``T2 Communications'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that T2 Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.txt
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200932170058 FRN: 0014872337 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Ganoco, Inc. (``Ganoco'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ganoco is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.txt
  • No. EB-09-TC-164 NAL/Acct. No. 200932170123 FRN: 0014225684 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Telchin Corporation (``Telchin'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telchin is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.txt
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that General Mobile Radio Service, Inc. (``General Mobile Radio'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that General Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-389A1.txt
  • 6519841125 FRN: 0011437746 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that GOES Telecom, Inc. (``GOES Telecom'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that GOES Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.txt
  • 200932170064 FRN: 0004329348 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. (``Hartman'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hartman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.txt
  • No. 200932170066 FRN: 0011107539 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Highland Communications, LLC (``Highland'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Highland is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.txt
  • 200932170126 FRN: 0010635696 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC (``TeleSpan'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that TeleSpan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-9A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit l @ DA 09-9 January 7, 2009 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (CPNI Certifications) pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed annually between January 1 and March 1, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.txt
  • we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC (``Freedom Communications''). On February 26, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom Communications a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') based on Freedom Communications' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Freedom Communications, we agree with Freedom Communications that it had submitted, by mail, a complete CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year; although several pages
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1118A1.txt
  • their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation regarding Verizon's compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1), and section 64.2007 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2007. II. BACKGROUND 2. On January 27, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, Verizon filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its opt-out mechanism for obtaining customers' approval for use of their customer proprietary network information (``CPNI''). The notice stated that, on January 16, 2009, Verizon discovered that the total number of opt-out customers compiled by its vendor was greater than the number in its database by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1129A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BBG Communications, Inc. (``BBG Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BBG Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BBG Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BBG Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1130A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CMC Telecom, Inc. (``CMC Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CMC Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMC Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CMC Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1131A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and DialToneServices, L.P. (``DialToneServices'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against DialToneServices for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DialToneServices' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DialToneServices have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1132A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Faircall Corporation d/b/a 1-800 Faircall (``Faircall Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Faircall Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Faircall Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Faircall Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1133A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. (``GLC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GLC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GLC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1134A1.txt
  • or ``Commission'') and Impact Network Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Impact Long Distance (``Impact Network Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Impact Network Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Impact Network Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Impact Network Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1135A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Northwest Telephone, Inc. (``NWT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Northwest Telephone, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NWT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NWT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1136A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NovoLink Communications, Inc. (``NovoLink Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NovoLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NovoLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NovoLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1137A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and OLS, Inc. d/b/a Georgia On-Line Services (``OLS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against OLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding OLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and OLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1138A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Opcom, Inc. d/b/a WCS Telecom (``Opcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Opcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Opcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Opcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1139A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and OneLink Communications, Inc. (``OneLink Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against OneLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding OneLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and OneLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1140A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. (``Orlando'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Orlando's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Orlando have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1141A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Quasar Communications Corporation (``Quasar Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Quasar Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quasar Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Quasar Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1142A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele Uno, Inc. (``Tele Uno'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele Uno for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Uno's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele Uno have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1143A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TeleDias Communications, Inc. (``TeleDias'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TeleDias for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TeleDias' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TeleDias have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1182A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Arkadin, Inc. (``Arkadin'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Arkadin for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Arkadin's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Arkadin have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1183A1.txt
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clarksville Mutual Tel. Co. d/b/a Clarksville Mutual Telephone Company (``Clarksville Mutual'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clarksville Mutual for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clarksville Mutual's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clarksville Mutual have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1184A1.txt
  • E. Ritter Telephone Company, and Tri-County Tel. Co., Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Telephone Co., Inc. (collectively, ``Ritter'' or ``Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ritter for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ritter's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ritter have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1185A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lamar County Cellular, Inc. (``Lamar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lamar County Cellular, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lamar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lamar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1186A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Michigan Access, Inc. (``Michigan Access'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Michigan Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Michigan Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Michigan Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1187A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Reinbeck Municipal Telecommunications Utility (``Reinbeck Municipal'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Reinbeck Municipal for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reinbeck Municipal's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Reinbeck Municipal have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1188A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and US Telesis, Inc. (``US Telesis'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against US Telesis for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding US Telesis' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and US Telesis have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1250A1.txt
  • Released: October 5, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') and Global Information Technologies (``GIT''). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bureau against GIT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (``Commission'') rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and, among other things, section 254 of the Act and section 54.712(a) of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. The Bureau and GIT have negotiated the terms of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1298A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BroadRiver Communication Corporation (``BroadRiver'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BroadRiver Communication Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BroadRiver's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BroadRiver have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1299A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and B W Telcom Long Distance (``B W Telcom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B W Telcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B W Telcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B W Telcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1300A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Comteck of Indiana, Inc. (``Comteck of Indiana'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Comteck of Indiana for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Comteck of Indiana's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Comteck of Indiana have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1301A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. (``Communications 1'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications 1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Communications 1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1302A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. (``Craw-Kan'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Craw-Kan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Craw-Kan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1303A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and DTC Cable, Inc. (``DTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against DTC Cable, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1304A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and FiberComm, L.C. (``FiberComm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against FiberComm, L.C. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FiberComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and FiberComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1305A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Glenwood Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Glenwood Long Distance (``Glenwood'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Glenwood for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Glenwood's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Glenwood have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1306A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. (``Hamilton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc.'s apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Hamilton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1307A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Home Long Distance, Inc. (``Home Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Home Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Home Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Home Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the Omnibus NAL, each of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1326A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GlobalNova, Inc. (``GlobalNova'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GlobalNova for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalNova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GlobalNova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1327A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Horizon Technology (``Horizon'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Horizon Technology for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Horizon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Horizon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1328A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and KeyArt Communications, Inc. (``KeyArt'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KeyArt Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KeyArt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KeyArt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1329A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and MTC Communications, Inc. (``MTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against MTC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding MTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and MTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1330A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NNTC Wireless, LLC (``NNTC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NNTC Wireless, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NNTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NNTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1331A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nunn Communications, LLC (``Nunn Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nunn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nunn Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nunn Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1332A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Phillips County Communications, LLC (``Phillips'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Phillips County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Phillips's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Phillips have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1333A1.txt
  • ``Commission'') and Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance (``Pioneer'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pioneer's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pioneer have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1334A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Roggen Telephone Enterprises, Inc. (``RTE'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RTE for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RTE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1335A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Prairie Networks, LLC (``Prairie Networks'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Prairie Networks, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Prairie Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Prairie Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1336A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company (``Toledo'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toledo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Toledo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1337A1.txt
  • & TV, Inc. (``Vernon Communications'' or ``Company''). Vernon Communications was formerly a subsidiary of Mutual Telephone Company. The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Vernon Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Vernon Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mutual Telephone Company, on behalf of Vernon Communications, have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1338A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and WUE, Inc. (``WUE'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against WUE, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WUE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and WUE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1339A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Andina Corporation (``Andina Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Andina Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Andina Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Andina Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1340A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Answer Fort Smith, Inc. (``Answer Fort Smith'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Answer Fort Smith for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answer Fort Smith's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Answer Fort Smith have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1367A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Korea Telecom America, Inc. (``Korea Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Korea Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Korea Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Korea Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1370A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CMOLS, LLC (``CMOLS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CMOLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMOLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CMOLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1371A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Sound of Tri-State (``Tri-State'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tri-State for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-State's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tri-State have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1372A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Bingo Consulting, LLC (``Bingo'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bingo for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bingo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bingo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1374A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Paging and Telemessaging, Inc. (``Advanced Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1375A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Airwaves Communications, Inc. (``Airwaves Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Airwaves Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Airwaves Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Airwaves Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1376A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Axxis Communications, Inc., (``Axxis Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Axxis Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Axxis Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Axxis Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1444A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dialaround Enterprises Inc. (``Dialaround''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dialaround for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Dialaround's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dialaround have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1452A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC (``River City Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against River City Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding River City Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and River City Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1472A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Western Communications Services, Inc. (``Western Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Western Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Western Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Western Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1473A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westside Paging, Inc. d/b/a Westside Communications (``Westside Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westside Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westside Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westside Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1474A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ray's Electronics, Inc. (``Ray's Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ray's Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ray's Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ray's Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1475A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Page Plus, Inc. (``Page Plus'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Page Plus for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Page Plus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Page Plus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1476A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobile Radio Communications, Inc. d/b/a MobilFone (``Mobile Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobile Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobile Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1477A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Huffman Communications (``Huffman'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Huffman for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huffman's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Huffman have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1478A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Kotana Communications, Inc. (``Kotana Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Kotana Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kotana Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Kotana Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1479A1.pdf
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Teleplex, Inc. d/b/a Alert Communications (``Teleplex'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Teleplex for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teleplex's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Teleplex have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1480A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Matthews Answering Service, Inc. (``Matthews Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Matthews Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Matthews Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Matthews Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1481A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lancaster Radio Paging, Inc. d/b/a Access Telecommunications Network (``Lancaster Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lancaster Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lancaster Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lancaster Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1482A1.txt
  • or ``Commission'') and UIDC Telecom Division d/b/a Rio Networks f/k/a Rio Communications, Inc. (``Rio Networks'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Rio Networks for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Rio Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Rio Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1484A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Satellite Services, Inc. (``International Satellite Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Satellite Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Satellite Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Satellite Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1485A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westel, Inc. (``Westel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1486A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and eKit.com, Inc. (``eKit.com'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against eKit.com for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding eKit.com's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and eKit.com have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1487A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CresComm Services, Inc. d/b/a Crescent Communications Co. (``CresComm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CresComm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CresComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CresComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1488A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Alpha Message Center, Inc. (``Alpha Message'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alpha Message for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alpha Message's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Alpha Message have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1489A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clark Communications, Inc. (``Clark Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clark Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clark Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clark Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1490A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Bryan 800 Communications, Inc. (``Bryan 800'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bryan 800 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bryan 800's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bryan 800 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1491A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cottonwood Holdings Corporation d/b/a Beep West Radio Paging (``Cottonwood Holdings'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cottonwood Holdings for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cottonwood Holdings' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cottonwood Holdings have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1499A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fones West Digital Systems, Inc. d/b/a Lynx Wireless (``Fones West'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fones West for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fones West's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fones West have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1500A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Janaslani Enterprises, LLC (``Janaslani'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Janaslani Enterprises, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Janaslani's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Janaslani have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1501A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Fluent Inc. (``Fluent'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Fluent for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fluent's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Fluent have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1502A1.txt
  • or ``Commission'') and The Money Store, LP d/b/a The Money Box (``The Money Store'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against The Money Store for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Money Store's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and The Money Store have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1503A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and The Contact Network, Inc. d/b/a InLine (``The Contact Network'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against The Contact Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Contact Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and The Contact Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1504A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Total Communication Systems, Inc. (``Total Communication Systems'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Total Communication Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Total Communication Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Total Communication Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1505A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Basin Communications Systems, Inc. (``Basin Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Basin Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Basin Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Basin Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1506A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telstar Communications, Inc. (``Telstar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telstar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telstar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telstar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1507A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Terral Telephone Company, Inc. (``Terral Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Terral Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Terral Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Terral Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1508A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Signal Telecommunications, Inc. (``Signal Telecommunications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Signal Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Signal Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Signal Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1524A1.txt
  • Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively ``KLM''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KLM for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding KLM's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KLM have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1526A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ninetel, Inc. (``Ninetel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ninetel, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ninetel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ninetel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1527A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Oratel, Inc. (``Oratel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Oratel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Oratel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Oratel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1528A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ONS-Telecom, LLC (``ONS-Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ONS-Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ONS-Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ONS-Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1530A1.txt
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and David L. English d/b/a Mobile Communications Services (``David L. English'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against David L. English for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding David L. English's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and David L. English have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1531A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Communications Specialists, Inc. (``Communications Specialist'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Communications Specialist for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications Specialists' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Communications Specialists have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1532A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Flower City Paging, Inc. (``Flower City'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Flower City Paging, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Flower City's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Flower City have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1533A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and C & C Communications (``C & C'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against C & C for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding C & C's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and C & C have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1534A1.txt
  • B & C Mobile Communications, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Mobile (``B & C Mobile'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against B & C Mobile for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & C Mobile's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and B & C Mobile have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1535A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Relay Communications Corporation (``Relay Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Relay Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Relay Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Relay Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1536A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Critical Alert Systems, LLC, on behalf of Aroostook Paging, Inc. (``Aroostook'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Aroostook for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Aroostook's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Aroostook have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1568A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lloyd Hoff Holding Corporation d/b/a Black Bear Paging (``Lloyd Hoff'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lloyd Hoff for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lloyd Hoff's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lloyd Hoff have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1569A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lucky Communications, Inc. (``Lucky Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lucky Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lucky Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lucky Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1570A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Quick-Tel, Inc. (``Quick-Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Quick-Tel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quick-Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Quick-Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1571A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NexGen Integrated Communications, L.L.C. (``NexGen Integrated Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NexGen Integrated Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NexGen Integrated Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NexGen Integrated Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1572A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Iscom, Inc. (``Iscom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Iscom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Iscom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Iscom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1573A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Transcard, LLC f/k/a Innovative Processing Solutions, LLC (``Innovative Processing'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Innovative Processing for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Innovative Processing's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Innovative Processing have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1576A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GlobalPhone Corp. (``GlobalPhone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GlobalPhone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalPhone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GlobalPhone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1577A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and GeoNet Communications Group, Inc. (``GeoNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against GeoNet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GeoNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and GeoNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1578A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Gateway Wireless Services, L.C. (``Gateway Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Gateway Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Gateway Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Gateway Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1580A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and First Communications, Inc. (``First Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against First Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding First Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and First Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1581A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ezequiel Guido d/b/a E Marketing (``Ezequiel Guido'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ezequiel Guido for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ezequiel Guido's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ezequiel Guido have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1582A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Circle Telephone Company (``Circle Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Circle Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Circle Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Circle Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1583A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Carolina Mobile Communications, Ltd. (``Carolina'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Carolina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carolina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Carolina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1584A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Allcom Communications, Inc. (``Allcom Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Allcom Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Allcom Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Allcom Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1593A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. (``PriorityOne''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PriorityOne for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding PriorityOne's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PriorityOne have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1663A1.txt
  • New Talk, Inc. (formerly known as Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get a Phone) (collectively ``New Talk''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Talk for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding New Talk's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Talk have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1679A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and World Communications, Inc. (``World Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against World Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and World Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1680A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Global Connect Telecommunications, Inc. (``Global Connect'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Global Connect for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Connect's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Global Connect have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1681A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Courtesy Communications, Inc. (``Courtesy Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Courtesy Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Courtesy Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Courtesy Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1682A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and VIP Communications, Inc. (``VIP Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against VIP Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding VIP Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and VIP Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1683A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Telnet, Inc. (``International Telnet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Telnet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Telnet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Telnet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1684A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Range Corporation d/b/a Range Telecommunications (``Range Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Range Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Range Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Range Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1685A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Madera Radio Dispatch, Inc. (``Madera Radio'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Madera Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Madera Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Madera Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1686A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Suncoast Technology, Inc. (``Suncoast'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Suncoast Technology, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Suncoast's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Suncoast have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1687A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tri-Caps, Inc. (``Tri-Caps'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tri-Caps for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-Caps' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tri-Caps have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1688A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TTI Comm Corp. (``TTI Comm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TTI Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TTI Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TTI Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1761A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications (``Audio-Video''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Audio-Video for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Audio-Video's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Audio-Video have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1770A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Teton Communications, Inc. (``Teton'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Teton for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Teton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1771A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma (``Mobile Phone of Oklahoma'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobile Phone of Oklahoma for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Phone of Oklahoma's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1772A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Chapin Long Distance, Inc. (``Chapin Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Chapin Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Chapin Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Chapin Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1774A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lunex Telecom, Inc. (``Lunex Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lunex Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lunex Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lunex Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1775A1.txt
  • ``Commission'') and Maverick Media of Eau Claire Communications, LLC d/b/a Page Call Communications (``Maverick Media'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Maverick Media for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Maverick Media's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Maverick Media have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1776A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and McBlue Telecom, Inc. (``McBlue'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against McBlue for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding McBlue's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and McBlue have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1778A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Metro Beeper, Inc. (``Metro Beeper'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Metro Beeper for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metro Beeper's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Metro Beeper have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1779A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Milbank Communications, Inc. (``Milbank Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Milbank Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Milbank Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Milbank Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1781A1.txt
  • or ``Commission'') and Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc. (``Cordova'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cordova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cordova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1819A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Argentina USA, Inc. (``Telecom Argentina'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telecom Argentina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telecom Argentina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telecom Argentina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1821A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and The Beeper People, Inc. d/b/a AirPage (``Beeper People'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Beeper People for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Beeper People's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Beeper People have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1822A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Texapage N.E., Inc. (``Texapage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Texapage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Texapage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Texapage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1823A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Valley Communications of Moses Lake, Inc. d/b/a Tele-Waves (``Valley Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Valley Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Valley Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Valley Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1824A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and World Communication Center, Inc. (``World Communication Center'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against World Communication Center for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communication Center's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and World Communication Center have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1825A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tim Ron Enterprises, LLC (``Tim Ron Enterprises'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tim Ron Enterprises for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tim Ron Enterprises' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tim Ron Enterprises have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1826A1.txt
  • ``Commission'') and Radio Communications of Charleston, Inc. d/b/a FirstPage (``Radio Communications of Charleston'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Radio Communications of Charleston for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Radio Communications of Charleston's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Radio Communications of Charleston have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1827A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Wireless Telecommunications Corp. f/k/a Westar Communications, Inc. (``Westar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1828A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Leflore Communications, Inc. (``Leflore'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Leflore Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Leflore's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Leflore have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1829A1.txt
  • X5 Solutions, X5 SLC, LLC d/b/a X5 Solutions, and X5 Solutions, Inc. (collectively, ``X5 Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against X5 Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X5 Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and X5 Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1830A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Premiere Communications Systems, Inc. (``Premiere Communications Systems'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Premiere Communications Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Premiere Communications Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Premiere Communications Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1831A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lectronics, Inc. (``Lectronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lectronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lectronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lectronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1832A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hello Pager Company, Inc. d/b/a Hello, Inc. (``Hello Pager'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Hello Pager for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hello Pager's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Hello Pager have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1833A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and RCC, Inc. d/b/a Radio-Comm Co. (``RCC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against RCC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and RCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1834A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Globaltel LD, Inc. d/b/a American Roaming Network (``ARN'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ARN for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ARN's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ARN have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1835A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LaVergne's TeleMessaging, Inc. (``LaVergne's'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LaVergne's for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LaVergne's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LaVergne's have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1841A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless (``Keystone Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Keystone Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Keystone Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Keystone Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.txt
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (``Amp'd Mobile''). On March 26, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Amp'd Mobile for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Amp'd Mobile was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Amp'd Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.txt
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (``Oneida''). On March 29, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Oneida for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Oneida was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.txt
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (``CTI''). On August 10, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to CTI for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless (``Key''). On March 28, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Key for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Key was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.txt
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Mechanicsville Telephone Company (``Mechanicsville Telephone''). On July 19, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Mechanicsville Telephone for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mechanicsville Telephone was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1898A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telephone Answering Service, Inc. (``Telephone Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telephone Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telephone Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telephone Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1899A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Alaska Telecom, Inc. (``Alaska Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Alaska Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alaska Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Alaska Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1900A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ATL Communications d/b/a Sunriver Telecom (``ATL Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ATL Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ATL Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ATL Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1901A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CSM Wireless, Inc. (``CSM Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CSM Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CSM Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CSM Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1902A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CTI Long Distance (``CTI Long Distance'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CTI Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CTI Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CTI Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability (``NALs'') released in February, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In February, 2009, the Bureau issued to each of these companies a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture based on their apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to file a compliant CPNI certification with the Bureau. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by these
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1913A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation (``Easterbrooke Cellular''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Easterbrooke Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Easterbrooke Cellular's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Easterbrooke Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1923A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ComTech21, LLC (``ComTech21'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComTech21 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech21's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComTech21 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1924A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North Bell Communications Corp. (``North Bell Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North Bell Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Bell Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and North Bell Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1925A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Go Solo Technologies (``Go Solo Technologies'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Go Solo Technologies for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go Solo Technologies' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Go Solo Technologies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1926A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CloseCall America, Inc. (``CloseCall'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CloseCall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CloseCall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CloseCall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1927A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and KK Communications, L.P. d/b/a Autophone of Laredo, LTD (``KK Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against KK Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KK Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and KK Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1928A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Midwestern Telecommunications, Inc. (``Midwestern'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Midwestern for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwestern's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Midwestern have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1929A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Com-Nav, Inc. d/b/a Radio Telephone of Maine (``Com-Nav'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Com-Nav for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Com-Nav's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Com-Nav have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1930A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cook Telecom, Inc. (``Cook Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cook Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cook Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cook Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1939A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and 01 Communications, Inc. (``01 Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against [Company name] for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 01 Communication's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and 01 Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1940A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Manchester-Hartland Telephone Co. (``Manchester-Hartland'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Manchester-Hartland for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Manchester-Hartland's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Manchester-Hartland have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1941A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Midwest Management, Inc. -- Consolidated (``Midwest Management'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Midwest Management for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwest Management's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Midwest Management have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1943A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ProPage, Inc. (``ProPage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ProPage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ProPage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ProPage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1944A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Standard Electronics West, Inc. d/b/a ALLPAGE (``Standard Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Standard Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Standard Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Standard Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1962A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and X2 Comm, Inc. d/b/a DC Communications (``X2 Comm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against X2 Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X2 Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and X2 Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1963A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Nova Cellular West, Inc. d/b/a San Diego Wireless (``Nova Cellular'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Nova Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nova Cellular's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Nova Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1964A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Pete's Communications, Inc. (``Pete's Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pete's Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pete's Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pete's Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1965A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Omnicom Paging Plus, LLC (``Omnicom Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Omnicom Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Omnicom Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Omnicom Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1966A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North Sight Communications, Inc. (``North Sight Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North Sight Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Sight Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and North Sight Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1978A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Go2tel.com, Inc. (``Go2tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Go2tel.com, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go2tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Go2tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1979A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and FullTel, Inc. (``FullTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against FullTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FullTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and FullTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1980A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tel Tec, Inc. (``Tel Tec'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tel Tec for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tel Tec's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tel Tec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1981A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tularosa Communications, Inc. (``Tularosa'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tularosa Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tularosa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tularosa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1982A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC (``LTS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LTS's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1983A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC (``Magellan'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Magellan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Magellan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1984A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and American Page Network (``American Page Network'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against American Page Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding American Page Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and American Page Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1985A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ruddata Corporation d/b/a VCI Internet Service (``Ruddata'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ruddata for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ruddata's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ruddata have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1986A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele-Beep Paging Co. (``Tele-Beep Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele-Beep Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele-Beep Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele-Beep Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1987A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TRI-M Communications, Inc. (``TRI-M Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TRI-M Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TRI-M Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TRI-M Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2017A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mountain Paging Network, Inc. (``Mountain Paging'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mountain Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mountain Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2018A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dixie-Net Communications (``Dixie-Net'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dixie-Net for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dixie-Net's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dixie-Net have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2019A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Litecall, Inc. (``Litecall'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Litecall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Litecall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Litecall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2020A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and BendTel d/b/a Bend Data Center (``BendTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against BendTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BendTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and BendTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2021A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Biddeford Internet Corporation d/b/a Great Works Internet (``Biddeford'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Biddeford for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Biddeford's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Biddeford have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2022A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TelNet Worldwide, Inc. (``TelNet Worldwide'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TelNet Worldwide for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelNet Worldwide's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TelNet Worldwide have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2023A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Web Fire Communications, Inc. (``Web Fire'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Web Fire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Web Fire's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Web Fire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2024A1.txt
  • and Sagir, Inc. d/b/a Indigo Wireless and Americell PA3, LP d/b/a Indigo Wireless (``Indigo Wireless'' or ``Companies''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Indigo Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Indigo Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Indigo Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2025A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Raycom Electronics, Inc. (``Raycom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Raycom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Raycom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Raycom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2026A1.txt
  • ``Commission'') and T/A Apartment Services, Inc. d/b/a Off Campus Telecommunications, Inc. (``T/A Apartment Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against T/A Apartment Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding T/A Apartment Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and T/A Apartment Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2027A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Shorelink Communications Corp. (``Shorelink'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Shorelink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Shorelink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Shorelink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2028A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services (``General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2052A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and St. Olaf College (``St. Olaf'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against St. Olaf for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding St. Olaf's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and St. Olaf have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2053A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Outfitter Satellite, Inc. (``Outfitter Satellite'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Outfitter Satellite for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Outfitter Satellite's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Outfitter Satellite have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2054A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and A.M.S. Voicecom, Inc. (``A.M.S. Voicecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against A.M.S. Voicecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A.M.S. Voicecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and A.M.S. Voicecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2055A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Sumrada Communications Service, Inc. (``Sumrada'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Sumrada for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Sumrada's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Sumrada have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2056A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Huntleigh Telecommunications Group, Inc. (``Huntleigh Telecommunications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Huntleigh Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huntleigh Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Huntleigh Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2069A1.txt
  • LOI Response at 5. 47 C.F.R. § 9.5(b); VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10266 ¶ 37. VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10272 (quoting 911 Act § 3(b), 47 U.S.C. § 615). VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10272. Id. at n. 152. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.20000 - 1.20008. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2001 - 64.2009. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601 - 64.608. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.1 - 6.23 and 7.1 - 7.23. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.20 - 52.33 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 4.1 - 4.13. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.706. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.604. See 47 C.F.R. § 52.17. See 47 C.F.R. § 52.32. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2131A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Corporate Networking, Inc., (``Advanced'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Corporate Networking for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2135A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Answerphone Services, Inc. d/b/a Direct Page Communications (``Answerphone Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Answerphone Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answerphone Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Answerphone Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2136A1.txt
  • Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Utility Telephone, Inc. and Anew Telecommunications d/b/a Call America (jointly, ``Utility'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Utility for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Utility's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Utility have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2137A1.txt
  • Inc. d/b/a Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. and Reserve Long Distance Company, Inc. (jointly, ``Reserve Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Reserve Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reserve Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Reserve Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2138A1.txt
  • Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company (``Bluegrass'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bluegrass's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Bluegrass have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2173A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and 3U Telecom, Inc. (``3U Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against 3U Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 3U Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and 3U Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2174A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobilephone of Humboldt, Inc. (``Mobilephone of Humboldt'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobilephone of Humboldt for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilephone of Humboldt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobilephone of Humboldt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2175A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ImOn Communications, LLC (``ImOn'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ImOn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ImOn's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ImOn have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2176A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Professional Answering Service, Inc. (``Professional Answering Service'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Professional Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Professional Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Professional Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2177A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and User Centric Communications, Inc. (``User Centric'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against User Centric for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding User Centric's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and User Centric have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2205A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Custom Tel, LLC (``Custom Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Custom Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Custom Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Custom Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2206A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Global Tech Telecommunications, Inc. (``Global Tech'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Global Tech for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Tech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Global Tech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2207A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and HUB Communications, Inc. (``HUB Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against HUB Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding HUB Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and HUB Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2208A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mountain Communications and Electronics, Inc. (``Mountain Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mountain Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mountain Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2209A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telegration, Inc. (``Telegration'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telegration for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telegration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telegration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2224A1.txt
  • adopting the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification, and formally terminating the above-captioned Investigations. ``Parties'' means AT&T and the Bureau, each of which is a ``Party.'' ``Rules'' means those rules and regulations codified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. III. BACKGROUND Investigation EB-09-TC-382 3. On June 1, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, AT&T filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') opt-out mechanism. According to AT&T, the CPNI toll-free number used by small business customers to opt-out was mistakenly disconnected. AT&T reported that when small business customers called the toll-free number during business hours, they were automatically routed to a call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2272A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Parker FiberNet, LLC (``Parker FiberNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Parker FiberNet, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Parker FiberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Parker FiberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2273A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CP Telecom Inc. f/k/a ComputerPro, Inc. (``ComputerPro'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComputerPro for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComputerPro's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ComputerPro have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2274A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Unitycomm, LLC d/b/a U4Com (``Unitycomm'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Unitycomm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Unitycomm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Unitycomm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2325A1.txt
  • (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and A & W Communications, Inc. (``A & W Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against A & W Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A & W Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and A & W Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2327A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Kelley's Tele-Communications, Inc. (``Kelley's Tele-Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Kelley's Tele-Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kelley's Tele-Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Kelley's Tele-Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2328A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Mobilpage, Inc. (``Mobilpage'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Mobilpage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilpage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Mobilpage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2363A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Paxx Telecom, LLC (``Paxx Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Paxx Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Paxx Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Paxx Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2364A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Dunnell Tel. Co. (``Dunnell'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Dunnell for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dunnell's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Dunnell have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2390A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and New Start Communication Corp. (``New Start'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Start for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Start's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Start have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.txt
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). BACKGROUND Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.txt
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order (``the Companies''), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). BACKGROUND Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-692A1.txt
  • North American Numbering Plan (``NANP'') and Local Number Portability (``LNP'') administration; and the submission of information as set forth on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q). The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ComSpan for possible violations of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSpan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. The Bureau and ComSpan have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-832A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. (``HBC''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against HBC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding HBC's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and HBC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-833A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. (``Shoreham''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Shoreham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Shoreham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.txt
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Voip Alliance, LLC (``Voip Alliance''). Voip Alliance has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Voip Alliance is a prepaid calling card provider located in McAllen, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Voip Alliance is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Touch-Tel USA, LLC (``Touch-Tel USA''). Touch-Tel USA has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Touch-Tel USA is a prepaid calling card provider located in Houston, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Touch-Tel USA is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Phone Club Corporation (``Phone Club''). Phone Club has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Phone Club is a reseller of local and long distance telecommunications services located in Miami, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Phone Club is subject to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.txt
  • the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina (``Nu Era Telecom''). Nu Era Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Nu Era Telecom is an interexchange telecommunications carrier located in Miami Beach, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Nu Era Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. (``DigitGlobal Communications''). DigitGlobal Communications has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. DigitGlobal Communications is a telecommunications carrier located in Kew Gardens, New York. As a telecommunications carrier, DigitGlobal Communications is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.txt
  • 9, 2011 Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com (``Straightel''). Straightel has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Straightel is a Voice over Internet Protocol (``VoIP'') and prepaid calling card carrier located in Miramar, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Straightel is subject to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1115A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Southwest Communications, Inc. (``Southwest Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Southwest Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Southwest Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1116A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and LGT - Latin Global Telecom, LLC (``LGT'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against LGT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LGT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and LGT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.txt
  • Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely and/or compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1150A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CCI Network Services, LLC (``CCI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1153A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Public Service Communications, Inc. (``Public Service Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Public Service Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Public Service Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Public Service Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1197A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Toly Digital Network, Inc. (``Toly Digital'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Toly Digital for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toly Digital's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Toly Digital have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-119A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Advanced Business Integration Network (``Advance Business Integration'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advanced Business Integration Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Business Integration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advanced Business Integration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-120A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Call-O-Call, Inc. (``Call-O-Call'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Call-O-Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call-O-Call's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Call-O-Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1220A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and AccessCom, Inc. (``AccessCom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against AccessCom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AccessCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and AccessCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.txt
  • follows upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Dezco Communications, Inc. (``Dezco Communications''). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Dezco Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Dezco Communications was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.txt
  • Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Galaxy Internet Services, Inc.. (``Galaxy Internet Services''). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Galaxy Internet Services apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Galaxy Internet Services was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1436A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and New Bridge Technologies, Inc. (``New Bridge'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against New Bridge for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Bridge's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and New Bridge have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1469A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ValuTel Communications, Inc. (``ValuTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ValuTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ValuTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ValuTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1484A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Saving Call, LLC (``Saving Call'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Saving Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Saving Call's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Saving Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-14A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telebeep, Inc. (``Telebeep'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Telebeep for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telebeep's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telebeep have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1509A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Accutel of Texas, LP (``Accutel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Accutel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Accutel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Accutel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1510A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Revolution Communications Company, LTD (``Revolution Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Revolution Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Revolution Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Revolution Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1568A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Crossfire Telecommunications, LLC (``Crossfire'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Crossfire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Crossfire's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Crossfire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.txt
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-15A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Multi Voice, Inc. (``Multi Voice'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Multi Voice for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Multi Voice's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Multi Voice have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1636A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NTS Services Corp. (``NTS'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NTS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NTS's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-16A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Lyca Tel, LLC (``Lyca Tel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Lyca Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lyca Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Lyca Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.txt
  • for Forfeiture of February 18, 2008, we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Blue Casa Communications, Inc. d/b/a Blue Casa Communications, LLC (Blue Casa or Company). In the Omnibus NAL, we found Blue Casa apparently liable for a forfeiture for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we found
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.txt
  • upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc. (Intercel or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Intercel apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Intercel was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.txt
  • a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 28, 2011 by Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot (``Think 12''). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for Think 12's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. Background Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois that resells interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of section 222 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-17A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Clon Communications, LLC (``Clon'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Clon for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Clon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-186A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Royal Phone Company, LLC (``Royal Phone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Royal Phone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Royal Phone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Royal Phone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. (Unitec or Company). In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or the Communications Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.txt
  • Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-187A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Franz, Inc. d/b/a Telelight, Inc. (``Franz'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Franz for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Franz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Franz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-188A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and CyberNet Communications, Inc. (``CyberNet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against CyberNet Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CyberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and CyberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-189A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Davidson Telecom, LLC (``Davidson'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Davidson Telecom, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Davidson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Davidson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-18A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Central Communications Service Co. (``Central Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Central Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Central Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Central Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-190A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and International Access, Inc. (``International Access'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against International Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and International Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $29,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2008 and 2009. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-198A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine North, Inc. (``NationsLine North'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine North for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine North's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine North have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-199A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine Delaware, Inc. (``NationsLine Delaware'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine Delaware for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Delaware's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine Delaware have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-19A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Atlantic Telecom, Inc. (``Atlantic Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Atlantic Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Atlantic Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Atlantic Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-200A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine District of Columbia, Inc. (``NationsLine DC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine DC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine DC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine DC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-201A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine Virginia, Inc. (``NationsLine Virginia'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine Virginia for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Virginia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine Virginia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-202A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NationsLine, Inc. (``NationsLine'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NationsLine for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NationsLine have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-20A1.txt
  • and Advantage Wireless Communications, Inc. d/b/a Almar Communications and Blackhawk Communications (``Advantage Wireless Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Advantage Wireless Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advantage Wireless Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Advantage Wireless Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-275A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Delta Telecom, Inc. (``Delta Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Delta Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Delta Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Delta Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-277A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Coast International, Inc. (``Coast International'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Coast International for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Coast International's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Coast International have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-280A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Cyber Mesa Computer Systems, Inc. (``Cyber Mesa'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Cyber Mesa for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cyber Mesa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Cyber Mesa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-299A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. (``DNA'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DNA's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and DNA have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-313A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Simplink Corporation (``Simplink'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Simplink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Simplink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Simplink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-319A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NET/COMM Services, Corp. (``NET/COMM Services'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NET/COMM Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NET/COMM Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NET/COMM Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-321A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. (``TelePlus'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelePlus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TelePlus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-326A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Pacific Telecom Services, Inc. (``Pacific Telecom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Pacific Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pacific Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Pacific Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-32A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PR Wireless, Inc. d/b/a OPEN Mobile (``PR Wireless'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PR Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PR Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PR Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-33A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and PiperTel Communications, LLC (``PiperTel'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against PiperTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PiperTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and PiperTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-344A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Network Services Solutions, LLC (``Network Services Solutions'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Network Services Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Network Services Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Network Services Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-345A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Internet & Telephone, LLC (``Internet & Telephone'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Internet & Telephone, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Internet & Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Internet & Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-34A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and NetSpan Corporation d/b/a Foremost Telecommunications (``NetSpan Corporation'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against NetSpan Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NetSpan Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NetSpan Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-361A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and China Unicom (Americas) Operations Ltd. Corporation (``China Unicom'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against China Unicom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding China Unicom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and China Unicom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.txt
  • Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot (``Think 12'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois providing resold interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-36A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and North County Communications Corp. (``NCCC'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against North County Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and NCCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.txt
  • Appendix I FRN: See Appendix I OMNIBUS NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: February 25, 2011 Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL''), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I (``the Companies''), have apparently willfully and repeatedly violated (1) section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') rules by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') compliance certificate, and (2) an Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') order by failing to provide certain information regarding their CPNI filings. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding both apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-37A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Association Administrators, Inc. (``Association Administrators'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Association Administrators for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Association Administrators' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Association Administrators have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-38A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Ring Connection, Inc. (``Ring Connection'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Ring Connection for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ring Connection's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Ring Connection have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-418A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Telecom Consultants, Inc. (``TCI'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against TCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and TCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.txt
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nationwide Telecom, Inc. (``Nationwide Telecom'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Nationwide Telecom is a telecommunications carrier located in West Hills, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Nationwide Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.txt
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Calmtel USA, Inc. (``Calmtel USA'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Calmtel USA is a telecommunications carrier located in Los Angeles, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Calmtel USA is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.txt
  • 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Diamond Phone Card, Inc. (``Diamond Phone'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. Diamond Phone is a telecommunications carrier located in Elmhurst, New York providing prepaid phone card services. As a telecommunications carrier, Diamond Phone is subject to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.txt
  • March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against USA Teleport, Inc. (``USA Teleport'') for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. USA Teleport is a telecommunications carrier located in North Miami Beach, Florida providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USA Teleport is subject to the requirements
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-487A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Integrated Telemanagement Services, Inc. d/b/a OMNICOM (``Integrated Telemanagement'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Integrated Telemanagement for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Integrated Telemanagement's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Integrated Telemanagement have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-545A1.txt
  • of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Tele Circuit Network Corporation (``Tele Circuit'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Tele Circuit for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Circuit's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Tele Circuit have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-546A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Westgate Communications, LLC d/b/a WeavTel (``Westgate Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Westgate Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westgate Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Westgate Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-556A1.txt
  • the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and ZTG, Inc. (``ZTG'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against ZTG for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ZTG's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and ZTG have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.txt
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-69A1.txt
  • and United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One (``Call One'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call One's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Call One have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-70A1.txt
  • Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. (``Telestar'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telestar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Telestar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-71A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Latino Communications Corp. (``Latino Communications'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Latino Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Latino Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Latino Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-72A1.txt
  • (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Team Electronics, Inc. (``Team Electronics'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Team Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Team Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Team Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-73A1.txt
  • Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Neutral Tandem, Inc. (``Neutral'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Neutral Tandem for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Neutral's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Neutral have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.txt
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules, we deny a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 8, 2011, by USA Teleport, Inc. (``USAT''). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for USTA's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; paragraphs 51 and 53 of the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. Background USAT is a telecommunications carrier, located in North Miami Beach, Florida, that provides interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USAT is subject to the requirements
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-813A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Metronet Telecom, Inc. (``Metronet'' or ``Company''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') by the Bureau against Metronet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metronet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information (``CPNI'') certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). The Bureau and Metronet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.txt
  • upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``Omnibus NAL''), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: June 6, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION and background In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against 88 Telecom Corporation (``88 Telecom''). 88 Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act'' or ``Act''), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 88 Telecom is a prepaid calling card telecommunications carrier located in San Francisco, California. As a telecommunications carrier, 88 Telecom is subject to the requirements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.txt
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network.'' 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.txt
  • and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning various regulatory fee and reporting obligations as well as required contributions to the Universal Service Fund, the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, and the North American Numbering Plan and Local Number Portability administration. The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation by the Bureau into possible violations of Section 222 of the Act, Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order regarding BSCI's customer proprietary network information obligations. A copy of the Consent Decree negotiated by the Bureau and BSCI is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be served by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-628A1.txt
  • between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Ztar Mobile, Inc. (Ztar). The Consent Decree resolves and terminates the Bureau's investigations into Ztar's compliance with Section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning the deployment of digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets and with Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the EPIC CPNI Order, concerning the filing of an annual Customer Proprietary Network Information certification. The Bureau and Ztar have negotiated the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-924A1.txt
  • FRN: 0020537387 ORDER OF FORFEITURE Adopted: June 12, 2012 Released: June 12, 2012 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of $29,000 against Jahan Telecommunication, LLC (Jahan). Jahan has willfully and repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), Section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's or Commission's) rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit annual customer proprietary network information (CPNI) compliance certificates for both 2008 and 2009, and failing to respond to an Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) order to file certain information regarding its CPNI filings. Jahan is a telecommunications carrier and interconnected VoIP provider located
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.txt
  • appropriate notification of the carrier's request consistent with the requirements'' adopted by the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2003(h). Under the opt-out approval method ``a customer is deemed to have consented to the use, disclosure, or access to the customer's CPNI if the customer has failed to object thereto within the waiting period [adopted by the Commission in 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(d)(1)] after the customer is provided appropriate notification of the carrier's request for consent consistent with the rules'' adopted by the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2003(i). Such marketing is not limited to telemarketing and may include direct mail or other marketing. 2002 Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 17471-72, para. 19. The Commission noted that the carrier would still be able to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-100A1.txt
  • compliance with section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 222, and sections 64.2001-2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2001-2009. The Consent Decree also terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') against AT&T for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). The Commission and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation and the NAL. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-104A1.txt
  • the customer-carrier relationship. See 47 U.S.C. § 222; 47 C.F.R. § 64.2003(d). 47 U.S.C. § 222. This section provides that: ``Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunications carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.'' See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009 et seq., the Commission's rules implementing section 222 of the Act. . In specifications one through five of the subpoena, we directed LocateCell to provide corporate documents, including information concerning the relationship between 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. and LocateCell.com. We also requested information and documents relating to all websites owned by 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., and documents relating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-10A1.txt
  • a customer's CPNI approval can be clearly established. The Commission also requires telecommunications carriers to train their personnel as to when they are and are not authorized to use CPNI, and requires carriers to have an express disciplinary process in place. The Commission's safeguard rules also require carriers to maintain records that track access to customer CPNI records. Specifically, section 64.2009(c) of the Commission's rules requires carriers to ``maintain a record of all instances where CPNI was disclosed or provided to third parties, or where third parties were allowed access to CPNI,'' and to maintain such records for a period of at least one year. The Commission's safeguard rules also require the establishment of a supervisory review process for outbound marketing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.txt
  • a customer's CPNI approval can be clearly established. The Commission also requires telecommunications carriers to train their personnel as to when they are and are not authorized to use CPNI, and requires carriers to have an express disciplinary process in place. The Commission's safeguard rules also require carriers to maintain records that track access to customer CPNI records. Specifically, section 64.2009(c) of the Commission's rules requires carriers to ``maintain a record of all instances where CPNI was disclosed or provided to third parties, or where third parties were allowed access to CPNI,'' and to maintain such records for a period of at least one year. The Commission's safeguard rules also require the establishment of a supervisory review process for outbound marketing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-151A1.txt
  • is so because the customer is aware that its carrier has access to CPNI, and, through subscription to the carrier's service, has implicitly approved the carrier's use of CPNI within that existing relationship.'' Id. See id. (explaining ``total service approach'' to defining boundaries of customer's implied consent concerning use of CPNI). See id. at 8195, para. 193. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(a); see also CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8198, para. 198. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(b); see also CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8198, para. 198. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(c); see also CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8198-99, para. 199. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(d); see also CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8199, para. 200. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e);
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.txt
  • efforts); Verizon Comments at 15-16 (a narrative response from defendants detailing accessibility efforts would often be more appropriate). See 47 U.S.C § 618(a)(5)(C). Complainants may also request a copy of the public redacted version of a defendant's answer, as well as seek to obtain records filed by the defendant through a FOIA filing. CEA Comments at 46. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e). TIA Comments at 28. See also CEA Comments at 46; CTIA Comments at 37-8.. See Letter from Matthew Gerst, Counsel, External & State Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CG Docket No 10-213, (filed Sept. 26, 2011) (``CTIA Sept. 26 Ex Parte''). See CTIA Sept. 26 Ex Parte. CEA Comments at 45 (answer requirements ``implicitly assume'' that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-22A1.txt
  • reports, staff extrapolated from several years of outage reporting data regarding wireline service outages (which are functionally equivalent to outages of interconnected VoIP services) and estimates that up to 1,500 additional outage reports per year might be filed for the entire interconnected VoIP industry. Thus, 1,500 reports * $300/report equals $450,000 annual cost for outage reporting. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(e); Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information; IP-Enabled Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket. No. 96-115, WC Docket. No. 04-36, 22 FCC Rcd 6927 ¶¶ 51-53, 54 (2007) (extending Customer Proprietary Network Information requirements to interconnected VoIP service providers and adopting annual
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-122A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission.1 The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that DataFind.org may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 14, 2005, your counsel requested via email additional time, until December 23, 2005, to respond to the questions contained in the subpoena. To date, we have not received any
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-124A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission.1 The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that LocateCell.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 16, 2005, your counsel provided a partial response to several of the questions contained in the subpoena and indicated that you would provide additional responses to other questions the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1430A1.html
  • Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that your company may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any response to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1431A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via hand-delivery. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Onlinepi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. You requested two extensions of time in which to respond, and we granted both requests, extending the response date to February 21, 2006. To date, we have not received any
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1433A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Matecheckpi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any responses to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1641A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: August 17, 2006 Released: August 18, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau and Alltel Corporation ("Alltel"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against Alltel for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Enforcement Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be served by adopting
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-220A1.html
  • Alltel Corporation ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-058 ) Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632170002 Forfeiture ) FRN: 0012757787 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1.In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Alltel Corporation (``Alltel'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules1 by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-221A1.html
  • AT&T Inc. ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-059 ) Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632170003 Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004305124 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1.In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that AT&T Inc. (``AT&T'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules1 by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-916A1.html
  • 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, and in particular the serious consequences that may flow from inadequate concern for and protection of CPNI, we propose a monetary forfeiture of $100,000 against Cbeyond for its apparent failure to comply with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the CPNI Order. II. BACKGROUND 2. Based on concerns regarding the apparent availability to third parties of sensitive, personal subscriber information the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") has been investigating the adequacy of procedures implemented by telecommunications carriers to ensure confidentiality of their subscribers' CPNI. For example, companies known as "data brokers" have advertised the availability
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-100A1.html
  • compliance with section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S 222, and sections 64.2001-2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 64.2001-2009. The Consent Decree also terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against AT&T for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009(e). 2. The Commission and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation and the NAL. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-104A1.html
  • the customer-carrier relationship. See 47 U.S.C. S 222; 47 C.F.R. S 64.2003(d). 47 U.S.C. S 222. This section provides that: "Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunications carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier." See also 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009 et seq., the Commission's rules implementing section 222 of the Act. According to a petition for rulemaking filed with the Commission regarding protection of CPNI, some data brokers have taken advantage of carriers' inadequate security standards to gain access to CPNI under false pretenses, such as by posing as the customer and then offering the records for sale on the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1407A1.html
  • Mobile, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170011 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0014731822 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd" or "Amp'd Mobile") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the subpart governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1408A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that KLM Telephone Company, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively "KLM"), apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he had personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1409A1.html
  • No. EB-06-TC-4261 Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170035 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN:0001544790 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation, ("Easterbrooke Cellular") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1412A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-4483 CTC Communications Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0037 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0005013669 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that CTC Communications Corporation ("CTC") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1413A1.html
  • Telephone Company, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0038 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN 0004380200 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. ("Shoreham") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its CPNI compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules regarding the use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1414A1.html
  • No. EB-06-TC-4496 PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170055 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004272373 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1415A1.html
  • Rural Telephone Co. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170023 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004337218 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. ("Oneida") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its annual certification explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1417A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1419A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1420A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1421A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1422A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1423A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2300A1.html
  • of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On January 27, 2007, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Burke's Garden directing Burke's Garden to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Burke's Garden for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Burke's Garden filed a response to the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3281A1.html
  • Mechanicsville Telephone Company ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0041 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003748340 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville Telephone") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an annual certificate signed by a corporate officer stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3291A1.html
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200732170017 d/b/a A-1 Communications ) FRN: 0003765740 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a/ A-1 Communications ("Audio-Video" ) apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3581A1.html
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry ("LOIs") to several carriers, including Connect, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Connect did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to Connect for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On April 27, 2007, Connect submitted several documents in response to the NAL, including a letter from its President, Byron T. Young, which explains, among
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3582A1.html
  • ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170054 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0013394028 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone ("Connect") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3583A1.html
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry ("LOIs") to several carriers, including PhoneCo, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. PhoneCo did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to PhoneCo for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On June 27, 2007, PhoneCo submitted a response to the NAL, which explains the Company's reasons for failing to respond to the LOI. PhoneCo states
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3584A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-4006 Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0076 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003743119 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ("CTI") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3734A1.html
  • NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0009 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0007704166 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC ("River City Wireless") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3812A1.html
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and AT&T Inc. ("AT&T"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") regarding AT&T Corp.'s compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222(c)(1), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a). 2. The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4016A1.html
  • is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. Liberty Phones, an Arkansas-based company authorized to provide local and interexchange telecommunications services since 2002, provides prepaid residential and small business telephone service. On February 6, 2006, Liberty Phones submitted to the Bureau a Certificate of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") filing pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Upon checking, Bureau staff learned there was no record of Liberty Phones registering with the Commission or submitting Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (FCC Form 499) to the Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC"), or making associated payments to the requisite federal regulatory programs. 3. On May 31, 2007, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Liberty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4090A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") adopts the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and Cbeyond Communications, Inc. ("Cbeyond"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against Cbeyond for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Act") and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Consent decree terminates an investigation into Cbeyond's compliance with section 64.2007(a)(3) of the Commission's rules regarding customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. The Bureau and Cbeyond have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. Based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4776A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-3543 Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20083217 0003 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004938064 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 29, 2007 Released: November 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ("Dialaround") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1920A1.html
  • based on the caller's location. E911 also provides the call taker with the caller's call back number ... and in many cases, location information...." Id. at 10251 P:13 (footnotes omitted). See id. at 10246 n.2 (citing examples of VoIP customers futilely attempting to call 911 during emergency situations). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.20000 - 1.20008. See id. S:S: 64.2001 - 64.2009. See id. S:S: 64.601 - 64.608. See id. S:S: 6.1 - 6.23 and S:S: 7.1 - 7.23. See id. S:S: 52.20 - 52.33 See id. S: 54.706. See id. S: 64.604. See id. S: 52.17. See id. S: 52.32. See id. S: 64.1195. Id. S:S: 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-404A1.html
  • into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission") and CTC Communications Corp. ("CTC"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against CTC for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTC have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-457A1.html
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On December 5, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Manning directing Manning to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Manning for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Manning filed responses to the NAL on May
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-458A1.html
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On December 12, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Habla directing Habla to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Habla for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. The NAL was sent by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1581A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Wilson Communication Company, Inc. ("Wilson" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Wilson for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Wilson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Wilson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1583A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and WTC Communications, Inc. ("WTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against WTC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and WTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1586A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clearcom, Inc. ("Clearcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clearcom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clearcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clearcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1587A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Supply, Inc. ("TSI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telecom Supply, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TSI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1590A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CenCom, Inc. ("CenCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CenCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CenCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CenCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1591A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComSouth Telenet, Inc. ("ComSouth" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSouth Telenet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1592A1.html
  • 0005013699 ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. ("@Communications") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On September 2, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to @Communications asking @Communications whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate for the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1593A1.html
  • ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 24, 2009 Released: July 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 29, 2008, PriorityOne filed a certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules with the Commission's Secretary. In reviewing the certifications filed,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1599A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. ("ComSouth" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSouth's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComSouth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1600A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComTech Solutions, LLC ("ComTech" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComTech Solutions, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComTech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1601A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. ("Nebraska" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nebraska Central Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nebraska's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nebraska have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1602A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Stanton Long Distance, LLC ("Stanton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Stanton Long Distance, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Stanton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Stanton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1604A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC ("NLD" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nebraska Long Distance Company, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NLD's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NLD have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1606A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ligtel Communications, Inc. ("Ligtel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ligtel Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ligtel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ligtel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1607A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Texas Long Distance Company ("Southwest" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Texas Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Southwest have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1609A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. ("TCB" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Texas Communications of Brownwood, L.P. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCB's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TCB have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1610A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and RTC Communications Corp. ("RTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RTC Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1611A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Smithville Telecom, Inc. ("Smithville" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Smithville Telecom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Smithville's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Smithville have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1612A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ASTAC Long Distance ("ASTAC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ASTAC Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ASTAC Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ASTAC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1613A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. ("Family Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Family Tel of Oklahoma, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Family Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Family Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1614A1.html
  • ) ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 6, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville ("Naperville") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Naperville a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1615A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: August 4, 2009 Released: August 5, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. ("Sweetser") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Sweetser a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1616A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clay County Communications, LLC ("Clay County" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clay County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clay County's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clay County have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1617A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. ("Giles-Craig" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Giles-Craig Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Giles-Craig's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Giles-Craig have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1618A1.html
  • ) ORDER Adopted: July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. ("TCO Network") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On September 5, 2008, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to TCO Network asking TCO Network whether it had filed a CPNI compliance certificate
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1619A1.html
  • July 29, 2009 Released: July 30, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. ("Hinton") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Hinton a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1620A1.html
  • ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1621A1.html
  • ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction and Background 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. ("Momentum") for apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certification with the Commission on or before March 1, 2008. 2. On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Momentum a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1627A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Evertek, Inc. ("Evertek" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Evertek, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Evertek's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Evertek have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1628A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Topsham Communications, LLC ("Topsham" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Topsham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Topsham's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Topsham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1632A1.html
  • Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications ("B & B Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B & B Communications Network, Inc. d/b/a Butler-Bremer Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & B Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B & B Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1633A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GBT Communications, Inc. ("GBT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GBT Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GBT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GBT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1634A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. ("Cedar-Wapsie" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cedar-Wapsie Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cedar-Wapsie's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cedar-Wapsie have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1635A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NMRSA6-III Partnership ("NMRSA6-III" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NMRSA6-III Partnership for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NMRSA6-III's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NMRSA6-III have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1636A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. ("SOTI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Oklahoma Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SOTI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and SOTI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1637A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Peetz Communications, LLC ("Peetz" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Peetz Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Peetz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Peetz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1638A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Northeast Competitive Access Provider ("NCAP" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Northeast Competitive Access Provider for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCAP's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NCAP have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1639A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Carr Communications, Inc. ("Carr" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Carr Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carr's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Carr have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1640A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. ("Ogden" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ogden Long Distance Service, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ogden's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ogden have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1641A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westphalia Communications, Inc. ("Westphalia" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westphalia Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westphalia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westphalia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1642A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and SpringCom, Inc. ("SpringCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against SpringCom, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding SpringCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and SpringCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-16A1.html
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and AT&T, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates (collectively "AT&T" or "the AT&T Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Bureau against the AT&T Companies for possible violation of section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(3)(ii), 64.2008(d)(3)(v) and 64.2009(a) of the Federal Communication Commission's ("Commission") rules relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and sections 201(b) and 254 of the Act, and sections 54.712(a), 69.131 and 69.158 of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. 2. The Bureau and the AT&T Companies have negotiated the terms of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1709A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fort Mojave Television, Inc. ("Fort Mojave" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fort Mojave Television, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fort Mojave's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fort Mojave have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1742A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and AP&T Wireless, Inc. ("AP&T" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against AP&T Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AP&T's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and AP&T have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1743A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Falcon1, Inc. ("Falcon1" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Falcon1 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Falcon1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Falcon1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1744A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TSC Communications, Inc. ("TSC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TSC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TSC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TSC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1884A1.html
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad, Inc. ("Cellular Abroad"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Cellular Abroad a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Cellular Abroad's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Cellular Abroad, we agree with Cellular Abroad that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Cellular Abroad is not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1885A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The City of Daytona Beach ("Daytona Beach"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Daytona Beach a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Daytona Beach's apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Daytona Beach, we agree with Daytona Beach that Daytona Beach was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due. Accordingly,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1886A1.html
  • Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC ("Nebraska Supercomm"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Nebraska Supercomm a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Nebraska Supercomm's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon new information provided by Nebraska Supercomm, we agree with Nebraska Supercomm that it did not have any telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1888A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. ("Pilgrim"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Pilgrim a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Pilgrim's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Pilgrim, we agree with Pilgrim that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. During the 2007 calendar year, Pilgrim
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1889A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. ("Visionary"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Visionary a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Visionary's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Visionary, we agree with Visionary that it was not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Visionary is not a telecommunications carrier,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1891A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc ("Zicore"). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Zicore a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Zicore's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Zicore, we agree with Zicore that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1926A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc ("Isan"). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Isan a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Isan's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Isan, we agree with Isan that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1928A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC ("Plains"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Plains a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Plains' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Plains, we agree with Plains that it had timely filed its CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1929A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound ("Orange"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Orange a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Orange's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Orange, we agree with Orange that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1930A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. ("Freedom"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Freedom's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Freedom, we agree with Freedom that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for calendar year 2007
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1931A1.html
  • this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company ("Allendale"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Allendale a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Allendale's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Allendale, we agree with Allendale that it had timely filed its annual CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1932A1.html
  • In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated ("Worldwide Marketing"). On February 25, 2009, the Bureau issued to Worldwide Marketing a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Worldwide Marketing's apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, by failing to timely file a compliant annual CPNI certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Worldwide Marketing, we agree with Worldwide Marketing that it had no telecommunications customers during the 2007 calendar year, thus an annual compliance certification for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1980A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. In this Order, we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance ("Clarks"). On February 24, 2009, the Bureau issued to Clarks a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL") based on Clarks' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Clarks, we agree with Clarks that it was not a telecommunications carrier at the time the CPNI certification filing was due because it ceased offering
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-256A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Big Telephone, Inc. ("Big Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Big Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-257A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. ("Ben Lomand Rural") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand Rural is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-258A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ben Lomand Communications, LLC ("Ben Lomand") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-259A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Bellvoz Corp. ("Bellvoz" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bellvoz is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-260A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Bee Line Cable ("Bee Line" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bee Line is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-261A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc.("Atlantic" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Atlantic is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-264A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., ("American Fiber" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that American Fiber is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-265A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Action Communications, Inc. ("Action" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Action is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-267A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that 800 Response Information Services LLC ("800 Response" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that 800 Response is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-269A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. ("Buckeye" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Buckeye is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-270A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Cherokee Telephone Company ("Cherokee" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cherokee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-271A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that China Telecom (Americas) Corporation ("China Telecom" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that China Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-276A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom ("Communications Venture") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Communications Venture is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-277A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications ("Aquis" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Aquis is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-278A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Consolidated Telephone Company ("Consolidated Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Consolidated Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-280A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Clear World Communications Corporation ("Clear World" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clear World is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-282A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. ("D.G.A." or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that D.G.A. is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-290A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Isan Telecom, Inc. ("Isan" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Isan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-293A1.html
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC ("Tennessee" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Tennessee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-294A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging ("Kitchen Productions" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Kitchen Productions is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-296A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. ("KanOkla Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that KanOkla Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-297A1.html
  • 0017294992 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Latino Telecom, Inc. ("Latino Telecom") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Latino Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-298A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Threshold Communications, Inc. ("Threshold" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Threshold is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-299A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Leflore Communications, Inc. ("Leflore" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Leflore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-302A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. ("Legacy Long Distance" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Legacy Long Distance is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-303A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. ("M & L Enterprises") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that M & L Enterprises is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-305A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC ("Liberty" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Liberty is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-306A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One ("Call One") or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Call One is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-308A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that McClure Telephone Company ("McClure Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that McClure Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-309A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that VDL, Inc. d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers ("VDL" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that VDL is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-310A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe ("Broadstripe" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Broadstripe is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-312A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Volunteer First Services, LLC ("Volunteer") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Volunteer is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-315A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Commnet Wireless, LLC ("Commnet" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Commnet is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-316A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Momentum Telecom, Inc. ("Momentum" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Momentum is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-317A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated ("Worldwide Marketing" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Worldwide Marketing is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-318A1.html
  • FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. ("Angel Communications" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Angel Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-321A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Data Radio Management Company, Inc. ("Data Radio Management" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Data Radio Management is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-322A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find the Scott C. MacIntyre ("MacIntyre" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that MacIntyre is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-323A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Edward Adams Associates, Inc. ("Edward Adams Associates" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Edward Adams Associates is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-324A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Zicore Services, Inc. ("Zicore" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Zicore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-327A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that SI2Way, Inc. ("SI2Way" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SI2Way is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-328A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Wayne Frank ("Frank" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Frank is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-331A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that James T. Hopper ("Hopper" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hopper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-332A1.html
  • 0005027701 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Arthur N. Sherman ("Sherman") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sherman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-333A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. ("Telebeeper" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telebeeper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-334A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find That Clifford E. Bade ("Clifford Bade" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clifford Bade is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-335A1.html
  • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company ("National Brands" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that National Brands is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-337A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Netcarrier Telecom, Inc.("Netcarrier" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Netcarrier is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-338A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Network Innovations, Inc. ("Network Innovations" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Network Innovations is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-340A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Nunn Telephone Company ("Nunn" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Nunn is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-341A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that O. Richard Knutson ("O.R. Knutson" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that O.R. Knutson is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-342A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that One Touch India LLC ("One Touch") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that One Touch is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-344A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom("Phillips County" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Phillips County is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-347A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Prime Time Ventures ("Prime Time Ventures" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Prime Time Ventures is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-348A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that PriorityOne is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-349A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that ProCom LMR, Inc. ("ProCom" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ProCom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-350A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find the Protek Leasing Corp. ("Protek" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Protek is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-352A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that DAR Communications Corporation ("DAR" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that DAR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-357A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. ("Santa Rosa" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-358A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. ("Santa Rosa" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-359A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. ("Santel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-360A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Securetel Network Inc. ("Securetel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Securetel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-362A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. ("Shreveport" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Shreveport is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-367A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Dixville Telephone Company ("Dixville Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Dixville Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-370A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that E & F Telecom, Inc. ("E & F Telecom") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that E & F Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-371A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, ("Eastern Colorado" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Eastern Colorado is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-372A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that EGIX, Inc. ("EGIX" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that EGIX is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-373A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that South Central Wireless, Inc, dba SCTelcom ("SCTelcom") or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SCTelcom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-374A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. ("Specialized Mobile Radio" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Specialized Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-378A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that BKT Telecom Corp. ("BKT" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that BKT is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-380A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies ("First Mile") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that First Mile is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-382A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Gabriel Wireless, LLC ("Gabriel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Gabriel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-383A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that T2 Communications, LLC ("T2 Communications" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that T2 Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-384A1.html
  • 0014872337 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ganoco, Inc. ("Ganoco" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ganoco is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-385A1.html
  • FRN: 0014225684 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Telchin Corporation ("Telchin") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telchin is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-386A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that General Mobile Radio Service, Inc. ("General Mobile Radio" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that General Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-391A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. ("Hartman" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hartman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-394A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Highland Communications, LLC ("Highland" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Highland is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-401A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC ("TeleSpan" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that TeleSpan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-426A1.html
  • Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1052A1.html
  • we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC ("Freedom Communications"). On February 26, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom Communications a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Freedom Communications' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Freedom Communications, we agree with Freedom Communications that it had submitted, by mail, a complete CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year; although several
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1118A1.html
  • their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation regarding Verizon's compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222(c)(1), and section 64.2007 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2007. II. BACKGROUND 2. On January 27, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, Verizon filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its opt-out mechanism for obtaining customers' approval for use of their customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). The notice stated that, on January 16, 2009, Verizon discovered that the total number of opt-out customers compiled by its vendor was greater than the number in its database by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1129A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BBG Communications, Inc. ("BBG Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BBG Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BBG Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BBG Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1130A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CMC Telecom, Inc. ("CMC Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CMC Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMC Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CMC Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1131A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and DialToneServices, L.P. ("DialToneServices" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against DialToneServices for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DialToneServices' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DialToneServices have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1132A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Faircall Corporation d/b/a 1-800 Faircall ("Faircall Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Faircall Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Faircall Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Faircall Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1133A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. ("GLC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GLC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GLC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1134A1.html
  • or "Commission") and Impact Network Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Impact Long Distance ("Impact Network Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Impact Network Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Impact Network Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Impact Network Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1135A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Northwest Telephone, Inc. ("NWT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Northwest Telephone, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NWT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NWT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1136A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NovoLink Communications, Inc. ("NovoLink Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NovoLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NovoLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NovoLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1138A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Opcom, Inc. d/b/a WCS Telecom ("Opcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Opcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Opcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Opcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1140A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. ("Orlando" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Orlando's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Orlando have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1141A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Quasar Communications Corporation ("Quasar Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Quasar Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quasar Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Quasar Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1142A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele Uno, Inc. ("Tele Uno" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele Uno for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Uno's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele Uno have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1182A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Arkadin, Inc. ("Arkadin" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Arkadin for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Arkadin's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Arkadin have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1183A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clarksville Mutual Tel. Co. d/b/a Clarksville Mutual Telephone Company ("Clarksville Mutual" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clarksville Mutual for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clarksville Mutual's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clarksville Mutual have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1184A1.html
  • E. Ritter Telephone Company, and Tri-County Tel. Co., Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Telephone Co., Inc. (collectively, "Ritter" or "Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ritter for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ritter's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ritter have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1185A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lamar County Cellular, Inc. ("Lamar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lamar County Cellular, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lamar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lamar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1186A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Michigan Access, Inc. ("Michigan Access" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Michigan Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Michigan Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Michigan Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1187A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Reinbeck Municipal Telecommunications Utility ("Reinbeck Municipal" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Reinbeck Municipal for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reinbeck Municipal's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Reinbeck Municipal have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1188A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and US Telesis, Inc. ("US Telesis" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against US Telesis for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding US Telesis' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and US Telesis have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1250A1.html
  • October 5, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and Global Information Technologies ("GIT"). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bureau against GIT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's ("Commission") rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and, among other things, section 254 of the Act and section 54.712(a) of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. 2. The Bureau and GIT have negotiated the terms of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1298A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BroadRiver Communication Corporation ("BroadRiver" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BroadRiver Communication Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BroadRiver's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BroadRiver have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1299A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and B W Telcom Long Distance ("B W Telcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B W Telcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B W Telcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B W Telcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1300A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Comteck of Indiana, Inc. ("Comteck of Indiana" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Comteck of Indiana for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Comteck of Indiana's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Comteck of Indiana have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1301A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. ("Communications 1" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications 1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Communications 1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1302A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. ("Craw-Kan" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Craw-Kan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Craw-Kan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1303A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and DTC Cable, Inc. ("DTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against DTC Cable, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1304A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and FiberComm, L.C. ("FiberComm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against FiberComm, L.C. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FiberComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and FiberComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1305A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Glenwood Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Glenwood Long Distance ("Glenwood" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Glenwood for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Glenwood's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Glenwood have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1306A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. ("Hamilton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc.'s apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Hamilton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1307A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Home Long Distance, Inc. ("Home Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Home Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Home Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Home Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1308A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the Omnibus NAL, each
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1326A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GlobalNova, Inc. ("GlobalNova" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GlobalNova for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalNova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GlobalNova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1327A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Horizon Technology ("Horizon" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Horizon Technology for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Horizon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Horizon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1328A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and KeyArt Communications, Inc. ("KeyArt" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KeyArt Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KeyArt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KeyArt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1329A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and MTC Communications, Inc. ("MTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against MTC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding MTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and MTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1330A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NNTC Wireless, LLC ("NNTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NNTC Wireless, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NNTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NNTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1331A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nunn Communications, LLC ("Nunn Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nunn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nunn Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nunn Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1332A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Phillips County Communications, LLC ("Phillips" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Phillips County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Phillips's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Phillips have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1333A1.html
  • "Commission") and Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance ("Pioneer" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pioneer's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pioneer have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1334A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Roggen Telephone Enterprises, Inc. ("RTE" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RTE for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RTE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1335A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Prairie Networks, LLC ("Prairie Networks" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Prairie Networks, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Prairie Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Prairie Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1336A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company ("Toledo" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toledo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Toledo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1337A1.html
  • & TV, Inc. ("Vernon Communications" or "Company"). Vernon Communications was formerly a subsidiary of Mutual Telephone Company. The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Vernon Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Vernon Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mutual Telephone Company, on behalf of Vernon Communications, have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1338A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and WUE, Inc. ("WUE" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against WUE, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WUE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and WUE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1339A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Andina Corporation ("Andina Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Andina Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Andina Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Andina Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1340A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Answer Fort Smith, Inc. ("Answer Fort Smith" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Answer Fort Smith for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answer Fort Smith's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Answer Fort Smith have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1367A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Korea Telecom America, Inc. ("Korea Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Korea Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Korea Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Korea Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1370A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CMOLS, LLC ("CMOLS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CMOLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMOLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CMOLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1371A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Sound of Tri-State ("Tri-State" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tri-State for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-State's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tri-State have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1372A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Bingo Consulting, LLC ("Bingo" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bingo for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bingo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bingo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1374A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Paging and Telemessaging, Inc. ("Advanced Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1375A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Airwaves Communications, Inc. ("Airwaves Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Airwaves Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Airwaves Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Airwaves Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1376A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Axxis Communications, Inc., ("Axxis Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Axxis Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Axxis Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Axxis Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1444A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ("Dialaround"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dialaround for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Dialaround's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dialaround have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1452A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC ("River City Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against River City Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding River City Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and River City Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1472A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Western Communications Services, Inc. ("Western Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Western Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Western Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Western Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1473A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westside Paging, Inc. d/b/a Westside Communications ("Westside Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westside Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westside Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westside Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1474A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ray's Electronics, Inc. ("Ray's Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ray's Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ray's Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ray's Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1475A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Page Plus, Inc. ("Page Plus" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Page Plus for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Page Plus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Page Plus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1476A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobile Radio Communications, Inc. d/b/a MobilFone ("Mobile Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobile Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobile Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1477A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Huffman Communications ("Huffman" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Huffman for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huffman's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Huffman have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1478A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Kotana Communications, Inc. ("Kotana Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Kotana Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kotana Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Kotana Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1479A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Teleplex, Inc. d/b/a Alert Communications ("Teleplex" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Teleplex for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teleplex's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Teleplex have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1480A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Matthews Answering Service, Inc. ("Matthews Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Matthews Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Matthews Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Matthews Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1481A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lancaster Radio Paging, Inc. d/b/a Access Telecommunications Network ("Lancaster Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lancaster Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lancaster Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lancaster Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1482A1.html
  • or "Commission") and UIDC Telecom Division d/b/a Rio Networks f/k/a Rio Communications, Inc. ("Rio Networks" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Rio Networks for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Rio Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Rio Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1484A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Satellite Services, Inc. ("International Satellite Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Satellite Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Satellite Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Satellite Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1485A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westel, Inc. ("Westel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1486A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and eKit.com, Inc. ("eKit.com" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against eKit.com for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding eKit.com's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and eKit.com have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1487A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CresComm Services, Inc. d/b/a Crescent Communications Co. ("CresComm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CresComm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CresComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CresComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1488A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Alpha Message Center, Inc. ("Alpha Message" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alpha Message for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alpha Message's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Alpha Message have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1489A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clark Communications, Inc. ("Clark Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clark Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clark Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clark Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1490A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Bryan 800 Communications, Inc. ("Bryan 800" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bryan 800 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bryan 800's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bryan 800 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1491A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cottonwood Holdings Corporation d/b/a Beep West Radio Paging ("Cottonwood Holdings" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cottonwood Holdings for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cottonwood Holdings' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cottonwood Holdings have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1499A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fones West Digital Systems, Inc. d/b/a Lynx Wireless ("Fones West" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fones West for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fones West's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fones West have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1500A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Janaslani Enterprises, LLC ("Janaslani" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Janaslani Enterprises, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Janaslani's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Janaslani have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1501A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fluent Inc. ("Fluent" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fluent for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fluent's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fluent have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1502A1.html
  • or "Commission") and The Money Store, LP d/b/a The Money Box ("The Money Store" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against The Money Store for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Money Store's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and The Money Store have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1503A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and The Contact Network, Inc. d/b/a InLine ("The Contact Network" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against The Contact Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Contact Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and The Contact Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1504A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Total Communication Systems, Inc. ("Total Communication Systems" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Total Communication Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Total Communication Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Total Communication Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1505A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Basin Communications Systems, Inc. ("Basin Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Basin Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Basin Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Basin Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1506A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telstar Communications, Inc. ("Telstar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telstar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telstar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telstar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1507A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Terral Telephone Company, Inc. ("Terral Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Terral Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Terral Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Terral Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1508A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Signal Telecommunications, Inc. ("Signal Telecommunications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Signal Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Signal Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Signal Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1524A1.html
  • Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively "KLM"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KLM for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding KLM's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KLM have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1526A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ninetel, Inc. ("Ninetel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ninetel, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ninetel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ninetel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1527A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Oratel, Inc. ("Oratel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Oratel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Oratel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Oratel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1528A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ONS-Telecom, LLC ("ONS-Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ONS-Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ONS-Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ONS-Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1530A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and David L. English d/b/a Mobile Communications Services ("David L. English" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against David L. English for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding David L. English's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and David L. English have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1531A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Communications Specialists, Inc. ("Communications Specialist" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Communications Specialist for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications Specialists' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Communications Specialists have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1532A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Flower City Paging, Inc. ("Flower City" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Flower City Paging, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Flower City's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Flower City have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1533A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and C & C Communications ("C & C" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against C & C for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding C & C's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and C & C have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1534A1.html
  • B & C Mobile Communications, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Mobile ("B & C Mobile" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B & C Mobile for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & C Mobile's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B & C Mobile have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1535A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Relay Communications Corporation ("Relay Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Relay Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Relay Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Relay Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1536A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Critical Alert Systems, LLC, on behalf of Aroostook Paging, Inc. ("Aroostook" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Aroostook for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Aroostook's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Aroostook have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1568A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lloyd Hoff Holding Corporation d/b/a Black Bear Paging ("Lloyd Hoff" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lloyd Hoff for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lloyd Hoff's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lloyd Hoff have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1569A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lucky Communications, Inc. ("Lucky Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lucky Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lucky Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lucky Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1570A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Quick-Tel, Inc. ("Quick-Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Quick-Tel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quick-Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Quick-Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1571A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NexGen Integrated Communications, L.L.C. ("NexGen Integrated Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NexGen Integrated Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NexGen Integrated Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NexGen Integrated Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1572A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Iscom, Inc. ("Iscom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Iscom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Iscom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Iscom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1573A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Transcard, LLC f/k/a Innovative Processing Solutions, LLC ("Innovative Processing" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Innovative Processing for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Innovative Processing's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Innovative Processing have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1576A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GlobalPhone Corp. ("GlobalPhone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GlobalPhone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalPhone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GlobalPhone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1577A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GeoNet Communications Group, Inc. ("GeoNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GeoNet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GeoNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GeoNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1578A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Gateway Wireless Services, L.C. ("Gateway Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Gateway Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Gateway Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Gateway Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1580A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and First Communications, Inc. ("First Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against First Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding First Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and First Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1581A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ezequiel Guido d/b/a E Marketing ("Ezequiel Guido" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ezequiel Guido for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ezequiel Guido's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ezequiel Guido have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1582A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Circle Telephone Company ("Circle Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Circle Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Circle Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Circle Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1583A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Carolina Mobile Communications, Ltd. ("Carolina" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Carolina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carolina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Carolina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1584A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Allcom Communications, Inc. ("Allcom Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Allcom Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Allcom Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Allcom Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1663A1.html
  • New Talk, Inc. (formerly known as Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get a Phone) (collectively "New Talk"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Talk for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding New Talk's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Talk have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1679A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and World Communications, Inc. ("World Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against World Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and World Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1680A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Global Connect Telecommunications, Inc. ("Global Connect" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Global Connect for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Connect's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Global Connect have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1681A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Courtesy Communications, Inc. ("Courtesy Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Courtesy Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Courtesy Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Courtesy Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1682A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and VIP Communications, Inc. ("VIP Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against VIP Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding VIP Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and VIP Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1683A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Telnet, Inc. ("International Telnet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Telnet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Telnet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Telnet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1684A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Range Corporation d/b/a Range Telecommunications ("Range Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Range Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Range Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Range Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1685A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Madera Radio Dispatch, Inc. ("Madera Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Madera Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Madera Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Madera Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1686A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Suncoast Technology, Inc. ("Suncoast" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Suncoast Technology, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Suncoast's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Suncoast have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1687A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tri-Caps, Inc. ("Tri-Caps" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tri-Caps for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-Caps' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tri-Caps have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1688A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TTI Comm Corp. ("TTI Comm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TTI Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TTI Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TTI Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1761A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications ("Audio-Video"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Audio-Video for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Audio-Video's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Audio-Video have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1770A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Teton Communications, Inc. ("Teton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Teton for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Teton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1771A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma ("Mobile Phone of Oklahoma" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobile Phone of Oklahoma for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Phone of Oklahoma's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1772A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Chapin Long Distance, Inc. ("Chapin Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Chapin Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Chapin Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Chapin Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1774A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lunex Telecom, Inc. ("Lunex Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lunex Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lunex Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lunex Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1775A1.html
  • "Commission") and Maverick Media of Eau Claire Communications, LLC d/b/a Page Call Communications ("Maverick Media" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Maverick Media for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Maverick Media's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Maverick Media have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1776A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and McBlue Telecom, Inc. ("McBlue" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against McBlue for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding McBlue's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and McBlue have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1778A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Metro Beeper, Inc. ("Metro Beeper" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Metro Beeper for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metro Beeper's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Metro Beeper have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1779A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Milbank Communications, Inc. ("Milbank Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Milbank Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Milbank Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Milbank Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1781A1.html
  • or "Commission") and Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc. ("Cordova" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cordova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cordova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1819A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Argentina USA, Inc. ("Telecom Argentina" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telecom Argentina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telecom Argentina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telecom Argentina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1821A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and The Beeper People, Inc. d/b/a AirPage ("Beeper People" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Beeper People for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Beeper People's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Beeper People have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1822A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Texapage N.E., Inc. ("Texapage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Texapage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Texapage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Texapage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1823A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Valley Communications of Moses Lake, Inc. d/b/a Tele-Waves ("Valley Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Valley Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Valley Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Valley Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1824A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and World Communication Center, Inc. ("World Communication Center" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against World Communication Center for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communication Center's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and World Communication Center have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1825A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tim Ron Enterprises, LLC ("Tim Ron Enterprises" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tim Ron Enterprises for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tim Ron Enterprises' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tim Ron Enterprises have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1826A1.html
  • "Commission") and Radio Communications of Charleston, Inc. d/b/a FirstPage ("Radio Communications of Charleston" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Radio Communications of Charleston for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Radio Communications of Charleston's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Radio Communications of Charleston have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1827A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Wireless Telecommunications Corp. f/k/a Westar Communications, Inc. ("Westar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1828A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Leflore Communications, Inc. ("Leflore" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Leflore Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Leflore's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Leflore have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1829A1.html
  • X5 Solutions, X5 SLC, LLC d/b/a X5 Solutions, and X5 Solutions, Inc. (collectively, "X5 Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against X5 Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X5 Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and X5 Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1830A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Premiere Communications Systems, Inc. ("Premiere Communications Systems" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Premiere Communications Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Premiere Communications Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Premiere Communications Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1831A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lectronics, Inc. ("Lectronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lectronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lectronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lectronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1832A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hello Pager Company, Inc. d/b/a Hello, Inc. ("Hello Pager" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Hello Pager for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hello Pager's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Hello Pager have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1833A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and RCC, Inc. d/b/a Radio-Comm Co. ("RCC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RCC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1834A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Globaltel LD, Inc. d/b/a American Roaming Network ("ARN" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ARN for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ARN's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ARN have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1835A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LaVergne's TeleMessaging, Inc. ("LaVergne's" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LaVergne's for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LaVergne's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LaVergne's have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1841A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless ("Keystone Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Keystone Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Keystone Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Keystone Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1842A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd Mobile"). 2. On March 26, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Amp'd Mobile for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Amp'd Mobile was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Amp'd Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1843A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. ("Oneida"). 2. On March 29, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Oneida for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Oneida was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1844A1.html
  • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ("CTI"). 2. On August 10, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to CTI for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 4. IT IS
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1845A1.html
  • for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless ("Key"). 2. On March 28, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Key for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Key was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1846A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville Telephone"). 2. On July 19, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Mechanicsville Telephone for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mechanicsville Telephone was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1898A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telephone Answering Service, Inc. ("Telephone Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telephone Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telephone Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telephone Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1899A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Alaska Telecom, Inc. ("Alaska Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alaska Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alaska Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Alaska Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1900A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ATL Communications d/b/a Sunriver Telecom ("ATL Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ATL Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ATL Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ATL Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1901A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CSM Wireless, Inc. ("CSM Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CSM Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CSM Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CSM Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1902A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CTI Long Distance ("CTI Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CTI Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CTI Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTI Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1911A1.html
  • Liability ("NALs") released in February, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In February, 2009, the Bureau issued to each of these companies a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture based on their apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to file a compliant CPNI certification with the Bureau. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1913A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation ("Easterbrooke Cellular"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Easterbrooke Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Easterbrooke Cellular's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Easterbrooke Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1923A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComTech21, LLC ("ComTech21" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComTech21 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech21's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComTech21 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1924A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North Bell Communications Corp. ("North Bell Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North Bell Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Bell Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and North Bell Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1925A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Go Solo Technologies ("Go Solo Technologies" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Go Solo Technologies for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go Solo Technologies' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Go Solo Technologies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1926A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CloseCall America, Inc. ("CloseCall" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CloseCall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CloseCall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CloseCall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1927A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and KK Communications, L.P. d/b/a Autophone of Laredo, LTD ("KK Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KK Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KK Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KK Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1928A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Midwestern Telecommunications, Inc. ("Midwestern" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Midwestern for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwestern's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Midwestern have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1929A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Com-Nav, Inc. d/b/a Radio Telephone of Maine ("Com-Nav" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Com-Nav for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Com-Nav's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Com-Nav have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1930A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cook Telecom, Inc. ("Cook Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cook Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cook Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cook Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1939A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and 01 Communications, Inc. ("01 Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against [Company name] for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 01 Communication's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and 01 Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1940A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Manchester-Hartland Telephone Co. ("Manchester-Hartland" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Manchester-Hartland for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Manchester-Hartland's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Manchester-Hartland have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1941A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Midwest Management, Inc. -- Consolidated ("Midwest Management" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Midwest Management for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwest Management's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Midwest Management have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1943A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ProPage, Inc. ("ProPage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ProPage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ProPage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ProPage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1944A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Standard Electronics West, Inc. d/b/a ALLPAGE ("Standard Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Standard Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Standard Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Standard Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1962A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and X2 Comm, Inc. d/b/a DC Communications ("X2 Comm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against X2 Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X2 Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and X2 Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1963A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nova Cellular West, Inc. d/b/a San Diego Wireless ("Nova Cellular" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nova Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nova Cellular's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nova Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1964A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Pete's Communications, Inc. ("Pete's Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pete's Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pete's Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pete's Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1965A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Omnicom Paging Plus, LLC ("Omnicom Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Omnicom Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Omnicom Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Omnicom Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1966A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North Sight Communications, Inc. ("North Sight Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North Sight Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Sight Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and North Sight Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1978A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Go2tel.com, Inc. ("Go2tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Go2tel.com, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go2tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Go2tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1979A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and FullTel, Inc. ("FullTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against FullTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FullTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and FullTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1980A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tel Tec, Inc. ("Tel Tec" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tel Tec for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tel Tec's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tel Tec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1981A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tularosa Communications, Inc. ("Tularosa" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tularosa Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tularosa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tularosa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1982A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC ("LTS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LTS's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1983A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC ("Magellan" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Magellan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Magellan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1984A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and American Page Network ("American Page Network" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against American Page Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding American Page Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and American Page Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1985A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ruddata Corporation d/b/a VCI Internet Service ("Ruddata" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ruddata for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ruddata's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ruddata have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1986A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele-Beep Paging Co. ("Tele-Beep Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele-Beep Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele-Beep Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele-Beep Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1987A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TRI-M Communications, Inc. ("TRI-M Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TRI-M Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TRI-M Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TRI-M Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2017A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mountain Paging Network, Inc. ("Mountain Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mountain Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mountain Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2018A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dixie-Net Communications ("Dixie-Net" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dixie-Net for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dixie-Net's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dixie-Net have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2019A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Litecall, Inc. ("Litecall" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Litecall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Litecall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Litecall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2020A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BendTel d/b/a Bend Data Center ("BendTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BendTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BendTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BendTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2021A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Biddeford Internet Corporation d/b/a Great Works Internet ("Biddeford" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Biddeford for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Biddeford's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Biddeford have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2022A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TelNet Worldwide, Inc. ("TelNet Worldwide" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TelNet Worldwide for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelNet Worldwide's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TelNet Worldwide have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2023A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Web Fire Communications, Inc. ("Web Fire" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Web Fire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Web Fire's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Web Fire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2024A1.html
  • and Sagir, Inc. d/b/a Indigo Wireless and Americell PA3, LP d/b/a Indigo Wireless ("Indigo Wireless" or "Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Indigo Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Indigo Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Indigo Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2025A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Raycom Electronics, Inc. ("Raycom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Raycom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Raycom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Raycom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2026A1.html
  • "Commission") and T/A Apartment Services, Inc. d/b/a Off Campus Telecommunications, Inc. ("T/A Apartment Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against T/A Apartment Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding T/A Apartment Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and T/A Apartment Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2027A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Shorelink Communications Corp. ("Shorelink" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Shorelink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Shorelink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Shorelink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2028A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services ("General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2052A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and St. Olaf College ("St. Olaf" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against St. Olaf for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding St. Olaf's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and St. Olaf have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2053A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Outfitter Satellite, Inc. ("Outfitter Satellite" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Outfitter Satellite for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Outfitter Satellite's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Outfitter Satellite have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2054A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and A.M.S. Voicecom, Inc. ("A.M.S. Voicecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against A.M.S. Voicecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A.M.S. Voicecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and A.M.S. Voicecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2055A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Sumrada Communications Service, Inc. ("Sumrada" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Sumrada for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Sumrada's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Sumrada have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2056A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Huntleigh Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("Huntleigh Telecommunications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Huntleigh Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huntleigh Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Huntleigh Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2131A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Corporate Networking, Inc., ("Advanced" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Corporate Networking for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2135A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Answerphone Services, Inc. d/b/a Direct Page Communications ("Answerphone Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Answerphone Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answerphone Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Answerphone Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2136A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Utility Telephone, Inc. and Anew Telecommunications d/b/a Call America (jointly, "Utility" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Utility for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Utility's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Utility have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2137A1.html
  • Inc. d/b/a Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. and Reserve Long Distance Company, Inc. (jointly, "Reserve Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Reserve Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reserve Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Reserve Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2138A1.html
  • Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company ("Bluegrass" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bluegrass's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bluegrass have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2173A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and 3U Telecom, Inc. ("3U Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against 3U Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 3U Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and 3U Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2174A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobilephone of Humboldt, Inc. ("Mobilephone of Humboldt" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobilephone of Humboldt for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilephone of Humboldt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobilephone of Humboldt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2175A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ImOn Communications, LLC ("ImOn" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ImOn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ImOn's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ImOn have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2176A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Professional Answering Service, Inc. ("Professional Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Professional Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Professional Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Professional Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2177A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and User Centric Communications, Inc. ("User Centric" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against User Centric for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding User Centric's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and User Centric have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2205A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Custom Tel, LLC ("Custom Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Custom Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Custom Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Custom Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2206A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Global Tech Telecommunications, Inc. ("Global Tech" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Global Tech for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Tech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Global Tech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2207A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and HUB Communications, Inc. ("HUB Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against HUB Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding HUB Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and HUB Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2208A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mountain Communications and Electronics, Inc. ("Mountain Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mountain Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mountain Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2209A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telegration, Inc. ("Telegration" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telegration for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telegration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telegration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2224A1.html
  • terms and conditions of this Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification, and formally terminating the above-captioned Investigations. l. "Parties" means AT&T and the Bureau, each of which is a "Party." m. "Rules" means those rules and regulations codified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. III. BACKGROUND Investigation EB-09-TC-382 3. On June 1, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, AT&T filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") opt-out mechanism. According to AT&T, the CPNI toll-free number used by small business customers to opt-out was mistakenly disconnected. AT&T reported that when small business customers called the toll-free number during business hours, they were automatically routed to a call
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2272A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Parker FiberNet, LLC ("Parker FiberNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Parker FiberNet, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Parker FiberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Parker FiberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2273A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CP Telecom Inc. f/k/a ComputerPro, Inc. ("ComputerPro" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComputerPro for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComputerPro's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComputerPro have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2274A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Unitycomm, LLC d/b/a U4Com ("Unitycomm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Unitycomm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Unitycomm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Unitycomm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2282A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2325A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and A & W Communications, Inc. ("A & W Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against A & W Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A & W Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and A & W Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2327A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Kelley's Tele-Communications, Inc. ("Kelley's Tele-Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Kelley's Tele-Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kelley's Tele-Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Kelley's Tele-Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2328A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobilpage, Inc. ("Mobilpage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobilpage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilpage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobilpage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2363A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Paxx Telecom, LLC ("Paxx Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Paxx Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Paxx Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Paxx Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2364A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dunnell Tel. Co. ("Dunnell" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dunnell for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dunnell's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dunnell have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2371A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2390A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and New Start Communication Corp. ("New Start" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Start for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Start's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Start have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-292A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). II. BACKGROUND
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-293A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). II. BACKGROUND
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-692A1.html
  • North American Numbering Plan ("NANP") and Local Number Portability ("LNP") administration; and the submission of information as set forth on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q). The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSpan for possible violations of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSpan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Bureau and ComSpan have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-832A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. ("HBC"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against HBC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and HBC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-833A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. ("Shoreham"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Shoreham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Shoreham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1025A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Voip Alliance, LLC ("Voip Alliance"). Voip Alliance has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Voip Alliance is a prepaid calling card provider located in McAllen, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Voip Alliance is subject to the requirements of section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1026A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Touch-Tel USA, LLC ("Touch-Tel USA"). Touch-Tel USA has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Touch-Tel USA is a prepaid calling card provider located in Houston, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Touch-Tel USA is subject to the requirements of section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1028A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Phone Club Corporation ("Phone Club"). Phone Club has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Phone Club is a reseller of local and long distance telecommunications services located in Miami, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Phone Club is subject to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1029A1.html
  • Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina ("Nu Era Telecom"). Nu Era Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Nu Era Telecom is an interexchange telecommunications carrier located in Miami Beach, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Nu Era Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1031A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. ("DigitGlobal Communications"). DigitGlobal Communications has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. DigitGlobal Communications is a telecommunications carrier located in Kew Gardens, New York. As a telecommunications carrier, DigitGlobal Communications is subject to the requirements of section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1032A1.html
  • Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com ("Straightel"). Straightel has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Straightel is a Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") and prepaid calling card carrier located in Miramar, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Straightel is subject to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1115A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Communications, Inc. ("Southwest Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Southwest Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1116A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LGT - Latin Global Telecom, LLC ("LGT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LGT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LGT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LGT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1142A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely and/or compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1150A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CCI Network Services, LLC ("CCI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1153A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Public Service Communications, Inc. ("Public Service Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Public Service Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Public Service Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Public Service Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1197A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Toly Digital Network, Inc. ("Toly Digital" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Toly Digital for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toly Digital's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Toly Digital have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-119A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Business Integration Network ("Advance Business Integration" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Business Integration Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Business Integration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced Business Integration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-120A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Call-O-Call, Inc. ("Call-O-Call" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Call-O-Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call-O-Call's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Call-O-Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1220A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and AccessCom, Inc. ("AccessCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against AccessCom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AccessCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and AccessCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1258A1.html
  • follows upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Dezco Communications, Inc. ("Dezco Communications"). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Dezco Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Dezco Communications was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1259A1.html
  • Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Galaxy Internet Services, Inc.. ("Galaxy Internet Services"). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Galaxy Internet Services apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Galaxy Internet Services was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1436A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and New Bridge Technologies, Inc. ("New Bridge" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Bridge for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Bridge's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Bridge have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1469A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ValuTel Communications, Inc. ("ValuTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ValuTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ValuTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ValuTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1484A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Saving Call, LLC ("Saving Call" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Saving Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Saving Call's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Saving Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1497A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-14A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telebeep, Inc. ("Telebeep" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telebeep for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telebeep's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telebeep have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1509A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Accutel of Texas, LP ("Accutel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Accutel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Accutel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Accutel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1510A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Revolution Communications Company, LTD ("Revolution Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Revolution Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Revolution Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Revolution Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1568A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Crossfire Telecommunications, LLC ("Crossfire" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Crossfire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Crossfire's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Crossfire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-15A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Multi Voice, Inc. ("Multi Voice" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Multi Voice for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Multi Voice's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Multi Voice have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1636A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NTS Services Corp. ("NTS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NTS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NTS's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-16A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lyca Tel, LLC ("Lyca Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lyca Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lyca Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lyca Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1710A1.html
  • Forfeiture of February 18, 2008, we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Blue Casa Communications, Inc. d/b/a Blue Casa Communications, LLC (Blue Casa or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Blue Casa apparently liable for a forfeiture for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1769A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1771A1.html
  • upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc. (Intercel or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Intercel apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Intercel was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1794A1.html
  • a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 28, 2011 by Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot ("Think 12"). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for Think 12's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. II. Background 2. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois that resells interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-17A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clon Communications, LLC ("Clon" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clon for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-186A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Royal Phone Company, LLC ("Royal Phone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Royal Phone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Royal Phone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Royal Phone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1876A1.html
  • for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. (Unitec or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or the Communications Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1877A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-187A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Franz, Inc. d/b/a Telelight, Inc. ("Franz" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Franz for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Franz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Franz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-188A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CyberNet Communications, Inc. ("CyberNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CyberNet Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CyberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CyberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-189A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Davidson Telecom, LLC ("Davidson" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Davidson Telecom, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Davidson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Davidson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-18A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Central Communications Service Co. ("Central Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Central Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Central Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Central Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-190A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Access, Inc. ("International Access" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1944A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $29,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2008 and 2009. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-198A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine North, Inc. ("NationsLine North" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine North for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine North's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine North have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-199A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine Delaware, Inc. ("NationsLine Delaware" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine Delaware for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Delaware's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine Delaware have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-19A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Atlantic Telecom, Inc. ("Atlantic Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Atlantic Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Atlantic Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Atlantic Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-200A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine District of Columbia, Inc. ("NationsLine DC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine DC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine DC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine DC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-201A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine Virginia, Inc. ("NationsLine Virginia" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine Virginia for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Virginia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine Virginia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-202A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine, Inc. ("NationsLine" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-20A1.html
  • and Advantage Wireless Communications, Inc. d/b/a Almar Communications and Blackhawk Communications ("Advantage Wireless Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advantage Wireless Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advantage Wireless Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advantage Wireless Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-275A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Delta Telecom, Inc. ("Delta Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Delta Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Delta Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Delta Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-277A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Coast International, Inc. ("Coast International" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Coast International for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Coast International's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Coast International have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-280A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cyber Mesa Computer Systems, Inc. ("Cyber Mesa" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cyber Mesa for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cyber Mesa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cyber Mesa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-299A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. ("DNA" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DNA's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DNA have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-313A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Simplink Corporation ("Simplink" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Simplink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Simplink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Simplink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-319A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NET/COMM Services, Corp. ("NET/COMM Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NET/COMM Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NET/COMM Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NET/COMM Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-321A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. ("TelePlus" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelePlus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TelePlus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-326A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Pacific Telecom Services, Inc. ("Pacific Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pacific Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pacific Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pacific Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-32A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and PR Wireless, Inc. d/b/a OPEN Mobile ("PR Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against PR Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PR Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and PR Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-33A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and PiperTel Communications, LLC ("PiperTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against PiperTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PiperTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and PiperTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-344A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Network Services Solutions, LLC ("Network Services Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Network Services Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Network Services Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Network Services Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-345A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Internet & Telephone, LLC ("Internet & Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Internet & Telephone, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Internet & Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Internet & Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-34A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NetSpan Corporation d/b/a Foremost Telecommunications ("NetSpan Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NetSpan Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NetSpan Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NetSpan Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-361A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and China Unicom (Americas) Operations Ltd. Corporation ("China Unicom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against China Unicom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding China Unicom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and China Unicom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-365A1.html
  • 25, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot ("Think 12") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois providing resold interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-36A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North County Communications Corp. ("NCCC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North County Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NCCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-371A1.html
  • Appendix I ) ) OMNIBUS NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: February 25, 2011 Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I ("the Companies"), have apparently willfully and repeatedly violated (1) section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") rules by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, and (2) an Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") order by failing to provide certain information regarding their CPNI filings. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding both apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-37A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Association Administrators, Inc. ("Association Administrators" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Association Administrators for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Association Administrators' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Association Administrators have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-38A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ring Connection, Inc. ("Ring Connection" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ring Connection for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ring Connection's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ring Connection have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-418A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Consultants, Inc. ("TCI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-421A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nationwide Telecom, Inc. ("Nationwide Telecom") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Nationwide Telecom is a telecommunications carrier located in West Hills, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Nationwide Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-422A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Calmtel USA, Inc. ("Calmtel USA") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Calmtel USA is a telecommunications carrier located in Los Angeles, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Calmtel USA is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-423A1.html
  • Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Diamond Phone Card, Inc. ("Diamond Phone") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Diamond Phone is a telecommunications carrier located in Elmhurst, New York providing prepaid phone card services. As a telecommunications carrier, Diamond Phone is subject to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-424A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against USA Teleport, Inc. ("USA Teleport") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. USA Teleport is a telecommunications carrier located in North Miami Beach, Florida providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USA Teleport is subject to the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-487A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Integrated Telemanagement Services, Inc. d/b/a OMNICOM ("Integrated Telemanagement" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Integrated Telemanagement for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Integrated Telemanagement's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Integrated Telemanagement have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-545A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele Circuit Network Corporation ("Tele Circuit" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele Circuit for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Circuit's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele Circuit have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-546A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westgate Communications, LLC d/b/a WeavTel ("Westgate Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westgate Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westgate Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westgate Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-556A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ZTG, Inc. ("ZTG" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ZTG for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ZTG's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ZTG have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-587A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-69A1.html
  • and United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One ("Call One" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call One's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Call One have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-70A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. ("Telestar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telestar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telestar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-71A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Latino Communications Corp. ("Latino Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Latino Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Latino Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Latino Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-72A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Team Electronics, Inc. ("Team Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Team Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Team Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Team Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-73A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Neutral Tandem, Inc. ("Neutral" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Neutral Tandem for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Neutral's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Neutral have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-742A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-743A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-802A1.html
  • the Commission's rules, we deny a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 8, 2011, by USA Teleport, Inc. ("USAT"). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for USTA's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; paragraphs 51 and 53 of the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. II. Background 2. USAT is a telecommunications carrier, located in North Miami Beach, Florida, that provides interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USAT is subject to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-813A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Metronet Telecom, Inc. ("Metronet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Metronet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metronet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Metronet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-994A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-999A1.html
  • June 6, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against 88 Telecom Corporation ("88 Telecom"). 88 Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. 88 Telecom is a prepaid calling card telecommunications carrier located in San Francisco, California. As a telecommunications carrier, 88 Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-267A1.html
  • and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning various regulatory fee and reporting obligations as well as required contributions to the Universal Service Fund, the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, and the North American Numbering Plan and Local Number Portability administration. The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation by the Bureau into possible violations of Section 222 of the Act, Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order regarding BSCI's customer proprietary network information obligations. 2. A copy of the Consent Decree negotiated by the Bureau and BSCI is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-628A1.html
  • between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Ztar Mobile, Inc. (Ztar). The Consent Decree resolves and terminates the Bureau's investigations into Ztar's compliance with Section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning the deployment of digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets and with Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the EPIC CPNI Order, concerning the filing of an annual Customer Proprietary Network Information certification. 2. The Bureau and Ztar have negotiated the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-06-223A1.html
  • you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** DA 06-223 Released: January 30, 2006 Enforcement Bureau Directs All Telecommunications Carriers to Submit CPNI Compliance Certifications In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) directs all telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless carriers, to submit a compliance certificate to the Commission as required by section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules.1 Carrier certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with the rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),2 requires that telecommunications carriers
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-06-258A1.html
  • about the safeguards employed by the companies handling their private information and contacted the Bureau seeking information about the CPNI compliance certifications. Opening a new docket will enable the public to more easily access these carrier certificates. Carrier compliance certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Any CPNI compliance certifications already filed electronically with the Commission will be moved to the new docket by Commission staff. Carriers do not need to re-file their certifications. Filing Procedures Carriers' reports, to be filed on or before February
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-08-171A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 08-171 January 29, 2008 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications ("CPNI Certifications") pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed no later than March 1, 2008, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On April
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-09-240A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 09-240 February 13, 2009 Enforcement Bureau Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) again reminds all companies subject to its CPNI rules of their obligation to file their CPNI Certification no later than March 1, 2009. Certifications must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided below. Background. On April 2, 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-09-9A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 09-9 January 7, 2009 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (CPNI Certifications) pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed annually between January 1 and March 1, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-10-91A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-159A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-12-170A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/Welcome.html
  • 05-19-2010 [35]States that Have Certified that They Regulate Pole Attachments 01-15-2010 [36]Enforcement Bureau Takes Action to Enhance Access to Digital Wireless Service for Individuals with Hearing Disabilities 01-15-2010 [37]Annual CPNI Certicifations Due March 1, 2010 02-13-2009 [38]EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 01-07-2009 [39]EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 03-21-2008 [40]Corrected List of States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments - WC Docket No. 07-245 01-29-2008 [41]EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e) 09-07-2006 [42]FCC Announces Filing Procedures
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/TPI.html
  • information (CPNI) issues 04-28-2009 $4,000 Forfeiture against [389]1st United Tel-Com, Inc. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 02-24-2009 $4,000 forfeiture proposed against [390]Leflore Communications, Inc. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 02-13-2009 [391]Public Notice EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 01-07-2009 [392]Public Notice EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 02-19-2008 $100,000 Consent Decree with [393]CTC Communications Corp. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 01-29-2008 [394]Public Notice - EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e) 11-29-2007 $100,000 Forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/eabydate.html
  • residential or cellular telephone lines 02-13-2009 [655]Citation issued to Bank Card POS LLC for apparent violation of the TCPA and Commission's rules regarding delivering prerecorded unsolicited advertisements to residential or cellular telephone lines 02-13-2009 [656]Public Notice EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 02-13-2009 $4,500 Forfeiture against [657]Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. concerning violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Unsolicited Junk Faxes) 02-12-2009 [658]Citation issued to Lowe's Companies, Inc. for apparent violation of the TCPA and Commission's rules regarding delivering prerecorded unsolicited advertisements to residential or cellular telephone lines 02-12-2009 [659]Citation issued to Proficient Marketing LLC for apparent violation of the TCPA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99223.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99223.txt
  • Background 116.In the CPNI Order, the Commission concluded that "all telecommunications carriers must establish effective safeguards to protect against unauthorized access to CPNI by their employees or agents, or by unaffiliated third parties."328 To this end, we required carriers to develop and implement software systems that "flag" customer service records in connection with Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-223 329 Section 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules states that "Telecommunications carriers must develop and implement software that indicates within the first few lines of the first screen of a customer's service record the CPNI approval status and reference the customer's existing service subscription." 47 C.F.R. § 64.2009(a). See CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8198, ¶ 198. 330 Section 64.2009(c) of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd080130.html
  • * * * * * ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED JANUARY 29, 2008, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 19: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Released: 01/29/2008. ENFORCEMENT BUREAU PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON FILING OF ANNUAL CPNI CERTIFICATIONS. (DA No. 08-171). (Dkt No 06-36) Provided guidance on the filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e). EB. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau [75]DA-08-171A1.doc [76]DA-08-171A1.pdf [77]DA-08-171A1.txt Released: 01/29/2008. COMMENT SOUGHT ON A PETITION BY USCOC OF GREATER MISSOURI, LLC D/B/A U.S. CELLULAR FOR COMMISSION AGREEMENT IN REDEFINING THE SERVICE AREAS OF RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANIES IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI. (DA No. 08-181). (Dkt No 96-45). Comments Due: 02/28/2008. Reply Comments Due: 03/14/2008. WCB. Contact: Jennifer Prime at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd090217.html
  • FCC ACTING CHAIRMAN MICHAEL J. COPPS ON U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ON CONSUMER PRIVACY. STMT. News Media Contact: David Fiske 202-418-0513 OCH [24]DOC-288491A1.doc [25]DOC-288491A1.pdf [26]DOC-288491A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Released: 02/13/2009. ENFORCEMENT BUREAU REMINDS CARRIERS OF MARCH 1 DEADLINE AND PROVIDES FURTHER GUIDANCE ON FILING OF ANNUAL CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION (CPNI) CERTIFICATIONS UNDER 47 CFR 64.2009(E). (DA No. 09-240). EB. Contact: Please contact Edward Hayes at (202) 418-7994, Robert Somers at (202) 418-1483, Donna Cyrus at (202) 418-7325, Kim Wild at (202) 418-1324, or Marcy Greene at (202) 418-2410 [27]DA-09-240A1.doc [28]DA-09-240A1.pdf [29]DA-09-240A1.txt Released: 02/13/2009. FCC RELEASES LISTS OF TV STATIONS' RESPONSES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ANALOG TERMINATION ON FEBRUARY 17, 2009. (DA No. 09-245). MB. Action by:
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-122A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission.1 The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that DataFind.org may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 14, 2005, your counsel requested via email additional time, until December 23, 2005, to respond to the questions contained in the subpoena. To date, we have not received any
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-124A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission.1 The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that LocateCell.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. On December 16, 2005, your counsel provided a partial response to several of the questions contained in the subpoena and indicated that you would provide additional responses to other questions the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1430A1.html
  • Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that your company may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any response to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1431A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via hand-delivery. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Onlinepi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. You requested two extensions of time in which to respond, and we granted both requests, extending the response date to February 21, 2006. To date, we have not received any
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1433A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission via facsimile. The subpoena, issued pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 151 and 409 of the Communications Act, concerned call detail and other customer proprietary network information that Matecheckpi.com may be obtaining from telecommunications providers, in apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222 and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009. The subpoena required you to produce information and documents responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of the subpoena. To date, we have not received any responses to the subpoena from you. Accordingly, you have failed to comply with an order of the Commission. Therefore, we issue this Citation.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1641A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: August 17, 2006 Released: August 18, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau and Alltel Corporation ("Alltel"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against Alltel for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Enforcement Bureau and Alltel have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be served by adopting
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-220A1.html
  • Alltel Corporation ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-058 ) Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632170002 Forfeiture ) FRN: 0012757787 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1.In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Alltel Corporation (``Alltel'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules1 by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-221A1.html
  • AT&T Inc. ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-059 ) Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632170003 Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004305124 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 30, 2006 Released: January 30, 2006 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1.In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that AT&T Inc. (``AT&T'') apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules1 by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI''). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-916A1.html
  • 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, and in particular the serious consequences that may flow from inadequate concern for and protection of CPNI, we propose a monetary forfeiture of $100,000 against Cbeyond for its apparent failure to comply with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the CPNI Order. II. BACKGROUND 2. Based on concerns regarding the apparent availability to third parties of sensitive, personal subscriber information the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") has been investigating the adequacy of procedures implemented by telecommunications carriers to ensure confidentiality of their subscribers' CPNI. For example, companies known as "data brokers" have advertised the availability
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-100A1.html
  • compliance with section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S 222, and sections 64.2001-2009 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 64.2001-2009. The Consent Decree also terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against AT&T for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009(e). 2. The Commission and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation and the NAL. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-104A1.html
  • the customer-carrier relationship. See 47 U.S.C. S 222; 47 C.F.R. S 64.2003(d). 47 U.S.C. S 222. This section provides that: "Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunications carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier." See also 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009 et seq., the Commission's rules implementing section 222 of the Act. According to a petition for rulemaking filed with the Commission regarding protection of CPNI, some data brokers have taken advantage of carriers' inadequate security standards to gain access to CPNI under false pretenses, such as by posing as the customer and then offering the records for sale on the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1407A1.html
  • Mobile, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170011 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0014731822 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd" or "Amp'd Mobile") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the subpart governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1408A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that KLM Telephone Company, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively "KLM"), apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he had personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1409A1.html
  • No. EB-06-TC-4261 Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170035 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN:0001544790 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation, ("Easterbrooke Cellular") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1412A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-4483 CTC Communications Corporation ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0037 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0005013669 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2007 Released: March 26, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that CTC Communications Corporation ("CTC") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1413A1.html
  • Telephone Company, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0038 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN 0004380200 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. ("Shoreham") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its CPNI compliance certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules regarding the use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1414A1.html
  • No. EB-06-TC-4496 PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170055 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004272373 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1415A1.html
  • Rural Telephone Co. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170023 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004337218 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 29, 2007 Released: March 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. ("Oneida") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to provide a statement accompanying its annual certification explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1417A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1419A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1420A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1421A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1422A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1423A1.html
  • information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 3. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information. The Commission has issued rules implementing section 222 of the Act. The Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their subscribers' CPNI. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2300A1.html
  • of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On January 27, 2007, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Burke's Garden directing Burke's Garden to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Burke's Garden for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Burke's Garden filed a response to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3281A1.html
  • Mechanicsville Telephone Company ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0041 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003748340 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville Telephone") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an annual certificate signed by a corporate officer stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3291A1.html
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200732170017 d/b/a A-1 Communications ) FRN: 0003765740 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 19, 2007 Released: July 19, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a/ A-1 Communications ("Audio-Video" ) apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute an annual certificate stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3581A1.html
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry ("LOIs") to several carriers, including Connect, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Connect did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to Connect for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On April 27, 2007, Connect submitted several documents in response to the NAL, including a letter from its President, Byron T. Young, which explains, among
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3582A1.html
  • ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732170054 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0013394028 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone ("Connect") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3583A1.html
  • telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to certain landline toll calls. 4. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry ("LOIs") to several carriers, including PhoneCo, directing them to submit their certifications for the previous five (5) years prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. PhoneCo did not respond to the LOI. Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued the NAL to PhoneCo for its failure to respond to the directive of the Bureau. 5. On June 27, 2007, PhoneCo submitted a response to the NAL, which explains the Company's reasons for failing to respond to the LOI. PhoneCo states
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3584A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-4006 Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0076 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0003743119 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 10, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ("CTI") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a compliance certificate executed by a corporate officer stating that he has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3734A1.html
  • NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0009 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0007704166 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC ("River City Wireless") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3812A1.html
  • entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and AT&T Inc. ("AT&T"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") regarding AT&T Corp.'s compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222(c)(1), and sections 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.2007, 64.2008(a), 64.2008(d)(2), and 64.2009(a). 2. The Bureau and AT&T have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4016A1.html
  • is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. II. BACKGROUND 2. Liberty Phones, an Arkansas-based company authorized to provide local and interexchange telecommunications services since 2002, provides prepaid residential and small business telephone service. On February 6, 2006, Liberty Phones submitted to the Bureau a Certificate of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") filing pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Upon checking, Bureau staff learned there was no record of Liberty Phones registering with the Commission or submitting Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (FCC Form 499) to the Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC"), or making associated payments to the requisite federal regulatory programs. 3. On May 31, 2007, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Liberty
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4090A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") adopts the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and Cbeyond Communications, Inc. ("Cbeyond"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against Cbeyond for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Act") and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Consent decree terminates an investigation into Cbeyond's compliance with section 64.2007(a)(3) of the Commission's rules regarding customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. The Bureau and Cbeyond have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. Based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4776A1.html
  • EB-06-TC-3543 Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 20083217 0003 Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN: 0004938064 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 29, 2007 Released: November 29, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ("Dialaround") apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer with personal knowledge execute an annual certificate stating that the company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1920A1.html
  • based on the caller's location. E911 also provides the call taker with the caller's call back number ... and in many cases, location information...." Id. at 10251 P:13 (footnotes omitted). See id. at 10246 n.2 (citing examples of VoIP customers futilely attempting to call 911 during emergency situations). See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.20000 - 1.20008. See id. S:S: 64.2001 - 64.2009. See id. S:S: 64.601 - 64.608. See id. S:S: 6.1 - 6.23 and S:S: 7.1 - 7.23. See id. S:S: 52.20 - 52.33 See id. S: 54.706. See id. S: 64.604. See id. S: 52.17. See id. S: 52.32. See id. S: 64.1195. Id. S:S: 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80. (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1920
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-404A1.html
  • into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission") and CTC Communications Corp. ("CTC"). The Consent Decree terminates a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against CTC for its apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTC have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve this matter and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public interest would be
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-457A1.html
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On December 5, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Manning directing Manning to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Manning for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. Manning filed responses to the NAL on May
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-458A1.html
  • a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigations into carrier protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). 2. On December 12, 2006, the Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Habla directing Habla to provide the company's CPNI compliance certificates for the previous five years, prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Habla for failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents related to the Bureau's investigation into carrier protection of CPNI. The NAL was sent by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-258A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ben Lomand Communications, LLC ("Ben Lomand") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ben Lomand is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-259A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Bellvoz Corp. ("Bellvoz" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bellvoz is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-260A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Bee Line Cable ("Bee Line" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Bee Line is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-261A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc.("Atlantic" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Atlantic is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-264A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., ("American Fiber" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that American Fiber is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-265A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Action Communications, Inc. ("Action" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Action is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-267A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that 800 Response Information Services LLC ("800 Response" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that 800 Response is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-269A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. ("Buckeye" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Buckeye is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-270A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Cherokee Telephone Company ("Cherokee" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Cherokee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-271A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that China Telecom (Americas) Corporation ("China Telecom" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that China Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-276A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom ("Communications Venture") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Communications Venture is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-277A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications ("Aquis" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Aquis is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-278A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Consolidated Telephone Company ("Consolidated Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Consolidated Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-280A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Clear World Communications Corporation ("Clear World" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clear World is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-282A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. ("D.G.A." or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that D.G.A. is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-290A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Isan Telecom, Inc. ("Isan" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Isan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-293A1.html
  • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC ("Tennessee" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Tennessee is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-294A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging ("Kitchen Productions" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Kitchen Productions is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-296A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. ("KanOkla Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that KanOkla Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-297A1.html
  • 0017294992 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Latino Telecom, Inc. ("Latino Telecom") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Latino Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-298A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Threshold Communications, Inc. ("Threshold" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Threshold is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-299A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Leflore Communications, Inc. ("Leflore" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Leflore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-302A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. ("Legacy Long Distance" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Legacy Long Distance is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-303A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. ("M & L Enterprises") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that M & L Enterprises is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-305A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC ("Liberty" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Liberty is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-306A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One ("Call One") or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Call One is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-308A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that McClure Telephone Company ("McClure Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that McClure Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-309A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that VDL, Inc. d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers ("VDL" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that VDL is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-310A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe ("Broadstripe" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Broadstripe is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-312A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Volunteer First Services, LLC ("Volunteer") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Volunteer is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-315A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Commnet Wireless, LLC ("Commnet" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Commnet is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-316A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Momentum Telecom, Inc. ("Momentum" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Momentum is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-317A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated ("Worldwide Marketing" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Worldwide Marketing is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-318A1.html
  • FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. ("Angel Communications" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Angel Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-321A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Data Radio Management Company, Inc. ("Data Radio Management" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Data Radio Management is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-322A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find the Scott C. MacIntyre ("MacIntyre" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that MacIntyre is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-323A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Edward Adams Associates, Inc. ("Edward Adams Associates" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Edward Adams Associates is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-324A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Zicore Services, Inc. ("Zicore" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Zicore is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-327A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that SI2Way, Inc. ("SI2Way" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SI2Way is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-328A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Wayne Frank ("Frank" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Frank is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-331A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that James T. Hopper ("Hopper" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hopper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-332A1.html
  • 0005027701 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Arthur N. Sherman ("Sherman") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Sherman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-333A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. ("Telebeeper" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telebeeper is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-334A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find That Clifford E. Bade ("Clifford Bade" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Clifford Bade is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-335A1.html
  • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company ("National Brands" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that National Brands is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-337A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Netcarrier Telecom, Inc.("Netcarrier" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Netcarrier is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-338A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Network Innovations, Inc. ("Network Innovations" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Network Innovations is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-340A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Nunn Telephone Company ("Nunn" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Nunn is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-341A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that O. Richard Knutson ("O.R. Knutson" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that O.R. Knutson is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-342A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that One Touch India LLC ("One Touch") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that One Touch is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-344A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom("Phillips County" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Phillips County is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-347A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Prime Time Ventures ("Prime Time Ventures" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Prime Time Ventures is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-348A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. ("PriorityOne" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that PriorityOne is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-349A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that ProCom LMR, Inc. ("ProCom" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that ProCom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-350A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find the Protek Leasing Corp. ("Protek" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Protek is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-352A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that DAR Communications Corporation ("DAR" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that DAR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-357A1.html
  • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. ("Santa Rosa" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-358A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. ("Santa Rosa" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santa Rosa is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-359A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. ("Santel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Santel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-360A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Securetel Network Inc. ("Securetel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Securetel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-362A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. ("Shreveport" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Shreveport is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-367A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Dixville Telephone Company ("Dixville Telephone" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Dixville Telephone is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-370A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that E & F Telecom, Inc. ("E & F Telecom") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that E & F Telecom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-371A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, ("Eastern Colorado" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Eastern Colorado is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-372A1.html
  • ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that EGIX, Inc. ("EGIX" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that EGIX is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-373A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that South Central Wireless, Inc, dba SCTelcom ("SCTelcom") or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that SCTelcom is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-374A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. ("Specialized Mobile Radio" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Specialized Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-378A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that BKT Telecom Corp. ("BKT" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that BKT is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-380A1.html
  • OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies ("First Mile") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that First Mile is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-382A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Gabriel Wireless, LLC ("Gabriel" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Gabriel is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-383A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that T2 Communications, LLC ("T2 Communications" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that T2 Communications is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-384A1.html
  • 0014872337 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 26, 2009 Released: February 26, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Ganoco, Inc. ("Ganoco" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Ganoco is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-385A1.html
  • FRN: 0014225684 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Telchin Corporation ("Telchin") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Telchin is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-386A1.html
  • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 25, 2009 Released: February 25, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that General Mobile Radio Service, Inc. ("General Mobile Radio" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that General Mobile Radio is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of six
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-391A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. ("Hartman" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Hartman is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-394A1.html
  • ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Highland Communications, LLC ("Highland" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that Highland is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-401A1.html
  • ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 24, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC ("TeleSpan" or "Company") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this apparent violation, we find that TeleSpan is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-426A1.html
  • Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1052A1.html
  • we cancel a proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC ("Freedom Communications"). On February 26, 2009, the Bureau issued to Freedom Communications a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") based on Freedom Communications' apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Bureau. 2. Upon review of the record, and based on additional information provided by Freedom Communications, we agree with Freedom Communications that it had submitted, by mail, a complete CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year; although several
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1118A1.html
  • their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's investigation regarding Verizon's compliance with section 222(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222(c)(1), and section 64.2007 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2007. II. BACKGROUND 2. On January 27, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, Verizon filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its opt-out mechanism for obtaining customers' approval for use of their customer proprietary network information ("CPNI"). The notice stated that, on January 16, 2009, Verizon discovered that the total number of opt-out customers compiled by its vendor was greater than the number in its database by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1129A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BBG Communications, Inc. ("BBG Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BBG Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BBG Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BBG Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1130A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CMC Telecom, Inc. ("CMC Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CMC Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMC Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CMC Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1131A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and DialToneServices, L.P. ("DialToneServices" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against DialToneServices for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DialToneServices' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DialToneServices have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1132A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Faircall Corporation d/b/a 1-800 Faircall ("Faircall Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Faircall Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Faircall Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Faircall Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1133A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. ("GLC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GLC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GLC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1134A1.html
  • or "Commission") and Impact Network Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Impact Long Distance ("Impact Network Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Impact Network Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Impact Network Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Impact Network Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1135A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Northwest Telephone, Inc. ("NWT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Northwest Telephone, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NWT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NWT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1136A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NovoLink Communications, Inc. ("NovoLink Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NovoLink Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NovoLink Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NovoLink Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1138A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Opcom, Inc. d/b/a WCS Telecom ("Opcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Opcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Opcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Opcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1140A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. ("Orlando" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Orlando Telephone Company, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Orlando's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Orlando have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1141A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Quasar Communications Corporation ("Quasar Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Quasar Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quasar Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Quasar Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1142A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele Uno, Inc. ("Tele Uno" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele Uno for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Uno's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele Uno have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1182A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Arkadin, Inc. ("Arkadin" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Arkadin for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Arkadin's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Arkadin have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1183A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clarksville Mutual Tel. Co. d/b/a Clarksville Mutual Telephone Company ("Clarksville Mutual" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clarksville Mutual for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clarksville Mutual's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clarksville Mutual have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1184A1.html
  • E. Ritter Telephone Company, and Tri-County Tel. Co., Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Telephone Co., Inc. (collectively, "Ritter" or "Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ritter for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ritter's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ritter have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1185A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lamar County Cellular, Inc. ("Lamar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lamar County Cellular, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lamar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lamar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1186A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Michigan Access, Inc. ("Michigan Access" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Michigan Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Michigan Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Michigan Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1187A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Reinbeck Municipal Telecommunications Utility ("Reinbeck Municipal" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Reinbeck Municipal for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reinbeck Municipal's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Reinbeck Municipal have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1188A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and US Telesis, Inc. ("US Telesis" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against US Telesis for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding US Telesis' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and US Telesis have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1250A1.html
  • October 5, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") and Global Information Technologies ("GIT"). The Consent Decree terminates the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Bureau against GIT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's ("Commission") rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order relating to the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information, and, among other things, section 254 of the Act and section 54.712(a) of the Commission's rules relating to the recovery of universal service fund contributions from end-user customers. 2. The Bureau and GIT have negotiated the terms of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1298A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BroadRiver Communication Corporation ("BroadRiver" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BroadRiver Communication Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BroadRiver's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BroadRiver have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1299A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and B W Telcom Long Distance ("B W Telcom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B W Telcom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B W Telcom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B W Telcom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1300A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Comteck of Indiana, Inc. ("Comteck of Indiana" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Comteck of Indiana for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Comteck of Indiana's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Comteck of Indiana have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1301A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. ("Communications 1" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Communications 1 Wireless, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications 1's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Communications 1 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1302A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. ("Craw-Kan" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Craw-Kan Communication Systems, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Craw-Kan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Craw-Kan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1303A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and DTC Cable, Inc. ("DTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against DTC Cable, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1304A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and FiberComm, L.C. ("FiberComm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against FiberComm, L.C. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FiberComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and FiberComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1305A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Glenwood Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Glenwood Long Distance ("Glenwood" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Glenwood for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Glenwood's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Glenwood have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1306A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. ("Hamilton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hamilton County Long Distance, Inc.'s apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Hamilton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1307A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Home Long Distance, Inc. ("Home Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Home Long Distance, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Home Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Home Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1308A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the Omnibus NAL, each
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1326A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GlobalNova, Inc. ("GlobalNova" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GlobalNova for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalNova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GlobalNova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1327A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Horizon Technology ("Horizon" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Horizon Technology for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Horizon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Horizon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1328A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and KeyArt Communications, Inc. ("KeyArt" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KeyArt Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KeyArt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KeyArt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1329A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and MTC Communications, Inc. ("MTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against MTC Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding MTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and MTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1330A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NNTC Wireless, LLC ("NNTC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NNTC Wireless, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NNTC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NNTC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1331A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nunn Communications, LLC ("Nunn Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nunn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nunn Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nunn Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1332A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Phillips County Communications, LLC ("Phillips" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Phillips County Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Phillips's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Phillips have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1333A1.html
  • "Commission") and Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance ("Pioneer" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pioneer Consolidated, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pioneer's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pioneer have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1334A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Roggen Telephone Enterprises, Inc. ("RTE" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RTE for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RTE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RTE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1335A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Prairie Networks, LLC ("Prairie Networks" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Prairie Networks, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Prairie Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Prairie Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1336A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company ("Toledo" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Toledo Telenet Long Distance Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toledo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Toledo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1337A1.html
  • & TV, Inc. ("Vernon Communications" or "Company"). Vernon Communications was formerly a subsidiary of Mutual Telephone Company. The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Vernon Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Vernon Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mutual Telephone Company, on behalf of Vernon Communications, have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1338A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and WUE, Inc. ("WUE" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against WUE, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding WUE's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and WUE have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1339A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Andina Corporation ("Andina Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Andina Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Andina Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Andina Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1340A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Answer Fort Smith, Inc. ("Answer Fort Smith" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Answer Fort Smith for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answer Fort Smith's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Answer Fort Smith have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1367A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Korea Telecom America, Inc. ("Korea Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Korea Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Korea Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Korea Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1370A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CMOLS, LLC ("CMOLS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CMOLS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CMOLS' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CMOLS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1371A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Sound of Tri-State ("Tri-State" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tri-State for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-State's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tri-State have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1372A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Bingo Consulting, LLC ("Bingo" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bingo for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bingo's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bingo have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1374A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Paging and Telemessaging, Inc. ("Advanced Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1375A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Airwaves Communications, Inc. ("Airwaves Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Airwaves Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Airwaves Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Airwaves Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1376A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Axxis Communications, Inc., ("Axxis Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Axxis Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Axxis Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Axxis Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1444A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dialaround Enterprises Inc. ("Dialaround"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dialaround for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Dialaround's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dialaround have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1452A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and River City Wireless of Tennessee, LLC ("River City Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against River City Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding River City Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and River City Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1472A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Western Communications Services, Inc. ("Western Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Western Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Western Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Western Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1473A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westside Paging, Inc. d/b/a Westside Communications ("Westside Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westside Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westside Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westside Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1474A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ray's Electronics, Inc. ("Ray's Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ray's Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ray's Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ray's Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1475A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Page Plus, Inc. ("Page Plus" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Page Plus for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Page Plus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Page Plus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1476A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobile Radio Communications, Inc. d/b/a MobilFone ("Mobile Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobile Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobile Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1477A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Huffman Communications ("Huffman" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Huffman for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huffman's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Huffman have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1478A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Kotana Communications, Inc. ("Kotana Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Kotana Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kotana Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Kotana Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1479A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Teleplex, Inc. d/b/a Alert Communications ("Teleplex" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Teleplex for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teleplex's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Teleplex have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1480A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Matthews Answering Service, Inc. ("Matthews Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Matthews Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Matthews Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Matthews Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1481A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lancaster Radio Paging, Inc. d/b/a Access Telecommunications Network ("Lancaster Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lancaster Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lancaster Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lancaster Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1482A1.html
  • or "Commission") and UIDC Telecom Division d/b/a Rio Networks f/k/a Rio Communications, Inc. ("Rio Networks" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Rio Networks for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Rio Networks' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Rio Networks have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1484A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Satellite Services, Inc. ("International Satellite Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Satellite Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Satellite Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Satellite Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1485A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westel, Inc. ("Westel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1486A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and eKit.com, Inc. ("eKit.com" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against eKit.com for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding eKit.com's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and eKit.com have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1487A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CresComm Services, Inc. d/b/a Crescent Communications Co. ("CresComm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CresComm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CresComm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CresComm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1488A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Alpha Message Center, Inc. ("Alpha Message" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alpha Message for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alpha Message's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Alpha Message have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1489A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clark Communications, Inc. ("Clark Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clark Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clark Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clark Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1490A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Bryan 800 Communications, Inc. ("Bryan 800" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bryan 800 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bryan 800's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bryan 800 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1491A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cottonwood Holdings Corporation d/b/a Beep West Radio Paging ("Cottonwood Holdings" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cottonwood Holdings for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cottonwood Holdings' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cottonwood Holdings have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1499A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fones West Digital Systems, Inc. d/b/a Lynx Wireless ("Fones West" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fones West for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fones West's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fones West have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1500A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Janaslani Enterprises, LLC ("Janaslani" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Janaslani Enterprises, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Janaslani's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Janaslani have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1501A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Fluent Inc. ("Fluent" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Fluent for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Fluent's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Fluent have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1502A1.html
  • or "Commission") and The Money Store, LP d/b/a The Money Box ("The Money Store" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against The Money Store for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Money Store's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and The Money Store have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1503A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and The Contact Network, Inc. d/b/a InLine ("The Contact Network" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against The Contact Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding The Contact Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and The Contact Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1504A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Total Communication Systems, Inc. ("Total Communication Systems" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Total Communication Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Total Communication Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Total Communication Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1505A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Basin Communications Systems, Inc. ("Basin Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Basin Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Basin Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Basin Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1506A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telstar Communications, Inc. ("Telstar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telstar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telstar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telstar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1507A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Terral Telephone Company, Inc. ("Terral Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Terral Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Terral Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Terral Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1508A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Signal Telecommunications, Inc. ("Signal Telecommunications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Signal Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Signal Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Signal Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1524A1.html
  • Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ Corporation (collectively "KLM"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KLM for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding KLM's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KLM have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1526A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ninetel, Inc. ("Ninetel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ninetel, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ninetel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ninetel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1527A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Oratel, Inc. ("Oratel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Oratel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Oratel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Oratel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1528A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ONS-Telecom, LLC ("ONS-Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ONS-Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ONS-Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ONS-Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1530A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and David L. English d/b/a Mobile Communications Services ("David L. English" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against David L. English for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding David L. English's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and David L. English have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1531A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Communications Specialists, Inc. ("Communications Specialist" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Communications Specialist for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Communications Specialists' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Communications Specialists have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1532A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Flower City Paging, Inc. ("Flower City" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Flower City Paging, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Flower City's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Flower City have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1533A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and C & C Communications ("C & C" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against C & C for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding C & C's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and C & C have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1534A1.html
  • B & C Mobile Communications, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Mobile ("B & C Mobile" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against B & C Mobile for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding B & C Mobile's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and B & C Mobile have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1535A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Relay Communications Corporation ("Relay Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Relay Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Relay Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Relay Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1536A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Critical Alert Systems, LLC, on behalf of Aroostook Paging, Inc. ("Aroostook" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Aroostook for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Aroostook's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Aroostook have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1568A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lloyd Hoff Holding Corporation d/b/a Black Bear Paging ("Lloyd Hoff" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lloyd Hoff for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lloyd Hoff's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lloyd Hoff have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1569A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lucky Communications, Inc. ("Lucky Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lucky Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lucky Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lucky Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1570A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Quick-Tel, Inc. ("Quick-Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Quick-Tel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Quick-Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Quick-Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1571A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NexGen Integrated Communications, L.L.C. ("NexGen Integrated Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NexGen Integrated Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NexGen Integrated Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NexGen Integrated Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1572A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Iscom, Inc. ("Iscom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Iscom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Iscom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Iscom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1573A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Transcard, LLC f/k/a Innovative Processing Solutions, LLC ("Innovative Processing" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Innovative Processing for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Innovative Processing's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Innovative Processing have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1576A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GlobalPhone Corp. ("GlobalPhone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GlobalPhone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GlobalPhone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GlobalPhone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1577A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and GeoNet Communications Group, Inc. ("GeoNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against GeoNet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding GeoNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and GeoNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1578A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Gateway Wireless Services, L.C. ("Gateway Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Gateway Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Gateway Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Gateway Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1580A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and First Communications, Inc. ("First Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against First Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding First Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and First Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1581A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ezequiel Guido d/b/a E Marketing ("Ezequiel Guido" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ezequiel Guido for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ezequiel Guido's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ezequiel Guido have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1582A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Circle Telephone Company ("Circle Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Circle Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Circle Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Circle Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1583A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Carolina Mobile Communications, Ltd. ("Carolina" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Carolina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Carolina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Carolina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1584A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Allcom Communications, Inc. ("Allcom Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Allcom Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Allcom Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Allcom Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1663A1.html
  • New Talk, Inc. (formerly known as Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get a Phone) (collectively "New Talk"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Talk for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding New Talk's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Talk have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1679A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and World Communications, Inc. ("World Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against World Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and World Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1680A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Global Connect Telecommunications, Inc. ("Global Connect" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Global Connect for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Connect's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Global Connect have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1681A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Courtesy Communications, Inc. ("Courtesy Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Courtesy Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Courtesy Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Courtesy Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1682A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and VIP Communications, Inc. ("VIP Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against VIP Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding VIP Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and VIP Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1683A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Telnet, Inc. ("International Telnet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Telnet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Telnet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Telnet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1684A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Range Corporation d/b/a Range Telecommunications ("Range Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Range Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Range Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Range Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1685A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Madera Radio Dispatch, Inc. ("Madera Radio" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Madera Radio for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Madera Radio's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Madera Radio have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1686A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Suncoast Technology, Inc. ("Suncoast" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Suncoast Technology, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Suncoast's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Suncoast have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1687A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tri-Caps, Inc. ("Tri-Caps" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tri-Caps for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tri-Caps' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tri-Caps have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1688A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TTI Comm Corp. ("TTI Comm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TTI Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TTI Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TTI Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1761A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications ("Audio-Video"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Audio-Video for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Audio-Video's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Audio-Video have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1770A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Teton Communications, Inc. ("Teton" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Teton for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Teton's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Teton have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1771A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma ("Mobile Phone of Oklahoma" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobile Phone of Oklahoma for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobile Phone of Oklahoma's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobile Phone of Oklahoma have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1772A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Chapin Long Distance, Inc. ("Chapin Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Chapin Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Chapin Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Chapin Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1774A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lunex Telecom, Inc. ("Lunex Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lunex Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lunex Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lunex Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1775A1.html
  • "Commission") and Maverick Media of Eau Claire Communications, LLC d/b/a Page Call Communications ("Maverick Media" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Maverick Media for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Maverick Media's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Maverick Media have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1776A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and McBlue Telecom, Inc. ("McBlue" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against McBlue for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding McBlue's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and McBlue have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1778A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Metro Beeper, Inc. ("Metro Beeper" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Metro Beeper for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metro Beeper's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Metro Beeper have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1779A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Milbank Communications, Inc. ("Milbank Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Milbank Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Milbank Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Milbank Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1781A1.html
  • or "Commission") and Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Cordova Wireless Communications, Inc. ("Cordova" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cordova's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cordova have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1819A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Argentina USA, Inc. ("Telecom Argentina" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telecom Argentina for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telecom Argentina's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telecom Argentina have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1821A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and The Beeper People, Inc. d/b/a AirPage ("Beeper People" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Beeper People for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Beeper People's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Beeper People have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1822A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Texapage N.E., Inc. ("Texapage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Texapage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Texapage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Texapage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1823A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Valley Communications of Moses Lake, Inc. d/b/a Tele-Waves ("Valley Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Valley Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Valley Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Valley Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1824A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and World Communication Center, Inc. ("World Communication Center" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against World Communication Center for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding World Communication Center's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and World Communication Center have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1825A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tim Ron Enterprises, LLC ("Tim Ron Enterprises" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tim Ron Enterprises for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tim Ron Enterprises' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tim Ron Enterprises have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1826A1.html
  • "Commission") and Radio Communications of Charleston, Inc. d/b/a FirstPage ("Radio Communications of Charleston" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Radio Communications of Charleston for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Radio Communications of Charleston's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Radio Communications of Charleston have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1827A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Wireless Telecommunications Corp. f/k/a Westar Communications, Inc. ("Westar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westar for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1828A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Leflore Communications, Inc. ("Leflore" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Leflore Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Leflore's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Leflore have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1829A1.html
  • X5 Solutions, X5 SLC, LLC d/b/a X5 Solutions, and X5 Solutions, Inc. (collectively, "X5 Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against X5 Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X5 Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and X5 Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1830A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Premiere Communications Systems, Inc. ("Premiere Communications Systems" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Premiere Communications Systems for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Premiere Communications Systems' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Premiere Communications Systems have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1831A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lectronics, Inc. ("Lectronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lectronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lectronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lectronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1832A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hello Pager Company, Inc. d/b/a Hello, Inc. ("Hello Pager" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Hello Pager for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Hello Pager's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Hello Pager have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1833A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and RCC, Inc. d/b/a Radio-Comm Co. ("RCC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against RCC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding RCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and RCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1834A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Globaltel LD, Inc. d/b/a American Roaming Network ("ARN" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ARN for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ARN's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ARN have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1835A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LaVergne's TeleMessaging, Inc. ("LaVergne's" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LaVergne's for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LaVergne's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LaVergne's have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1841A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Keystone Wireless d/b/a Immix Wireless ("Keystone Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Keystone Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Keystone Wireless's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Keystone Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1842A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Amp'd Mobile, Inc. ("Amp'd Mobile"). 2. On March 26, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Amp'd Mobile for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Amp'd Mobile was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Amp'd Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1843A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. ("Oneida"). 2. On March 29, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Oneida for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Oneida was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1844A1.html
  • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Capital Telecommunications, Inc. ("CTI"). 2. On August 10, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to CTI for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 4. IT IS
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1845A1.html
  • for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless ("Key"). 2. On March 28, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Key for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Key was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1846A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville Telephone"). 2. On July 19, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL in the amount of $100,000 to Mechanicsville Telephone for its apparent violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mechanicsville Telephone was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1898A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telephone Answering Service, Inc. ("Telephone Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telephone Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telephone Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telephone Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1899A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Alaska Telecom, Inc. ("Alaska Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Alaska Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Alaska Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Alaska Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1900A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ATL Communications d/b/a Sunriver Telecom ("ATL Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ATL Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ATL Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ATL Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1901A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CSM Wireless, Inc. ("CSM Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CSM Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CSM Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CSM Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1902A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CTI Long Distance ("CTI Long Distance" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CTI Long Distance for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CTI Long Distance's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CTI Long Distance have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1911A1.html
  • Liability ("NALs") released in February, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In February, 2009, the Bureau issued to each of these companies a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture based on their apparent violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to file a compliant CPNI certification with the Bureau. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1913A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation ("Easterbrooke Cellular"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Easterbrooke Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Easterbrooke Cellular's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Easterbrooke Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1923A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ComTech21, LLC ("ComTech21" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComTech21 for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComTech21's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComTech21 have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1924A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North Bell Communications Corp. ("North Bell Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North Bell Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Bell Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and North Bell Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1925A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Go Solo Technologies ("Go Solo Technologies" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Go Solo Technologies for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go Solo Technologies' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Go Solo Technologies have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1926A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CloseCall America, Inc. ("CloseCall" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CloseCall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CloseCall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CloseCall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1927A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and KK Communications, L.P. d/b/a Autophone of Laredo, LTD ("KK Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against KK Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding KK Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and KK Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1928A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Midwestern Telecommunications, Inc. ("Midwestern" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Midwestern for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwestern's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Midwestern have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1929A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Com-Nav, Inc. d/b/a Radio Telephone of Maine ("Com-Nav" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Com-Nav for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Com-Nav's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Com-Nav have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1930A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cook Telecom, Inc. ("Cook Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cook Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cook Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cook Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1939A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and 01 Communications, Inc. ("01 Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against [Company name] for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 01 Communication's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and 01 Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1940A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Manchester-Hartland Telephone Co. ("Manchester-Hartland" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Manchester-Hartland for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Manchester-Hartland's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Manchester-Hartland have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1941A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Midwest Management, Inc. -- Consolidated ("Midwest Management" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Midwest Management for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Midwest Management's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Midwest Management have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1943A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ProPage, Inc. ("ProPage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ProPage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ProPage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ProPage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1944A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Standard Electronics West, Inc. d/b/a ALLPAGE ("Standard Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Standard Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Standard Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Standard Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1962A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and X2 Comm, Inc. d/b/a DC Communications ("X2 Comm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against X2 Comm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding X2 Comm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and X2 Comm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1963A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Nova Cellular West, Inc. d/b/a San Diego Wireless ("Nova Cellular" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Nova Cellular for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Nova Cellular's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Nova Cellular have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1964A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Pete's Communications, Inc. ("Pete's Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pete's Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pete's Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pete's Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1965A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Omnicom Paging Plus, LLC ("Omnicom Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Omnicom Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Omnicom Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Omnicom Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1966A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North Sight Communications, Inc. ("North Sight Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North Sight Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding North Sight Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and North Sight Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1978A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Go2tel.com, Inc. ("Go2tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Go2tel.com, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Go2tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Go2tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1979A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and FullTel, Inc. ("FullTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against FullTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding FullTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and FullTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1980A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tel Tec, Inc. ("Tel Tec" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tel Tec for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tel Tec's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tel Tec have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1981A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tularosa Communications, Inc. ("Tularosa" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tularosa Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tularosa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tularosa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1982A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC ("LTS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LTS's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1983A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC ("Magellan" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Magellan Hill Technologies, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Magellan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Magellan have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1984A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and American Page Network ("American Page Network" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against American Page Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding American Page Network's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and American Page Network have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1985A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ruddata Corporation d/b/a VCI Internet Service ("Ruddata" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ruddata for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ruddata's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ruddata have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1986A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele-Beep Paging Co. ("Tele-Beep Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele-Beep Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele-Beep Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele-Beep Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1987A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TRI-M Communications, Inc. ("TRI-M Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TRI-M Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TRI-M Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TRI-M Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2017A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mountain Paging Network, Inc. ("Mountain Paging" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mountain Paging for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Paging's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mountain Paging have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2018A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dixie-Net Communications ("Dixie-Net" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dixie-Net for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dixie-Net's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dixie-Net have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2019A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Litecall, Inc. ("Litecall" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Litecall for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Litecall's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Litecall have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2020A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and BendTel d/b/a Bend Data Center ("BendTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against BendTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding BendTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and BendTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2021A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Biddeford Internet Corporation d/b/a Great Works Internet ("Biddeford" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Biddeford for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Biddeford's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Biddeford have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2023A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Web Fire Communications, Inc. ("Web Fire" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Web Fire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Web Fire's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Web Fire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2024A1.html
  • and Sagir, Inc. d/b/a Indigo Wireless and Americell PA3, LP d/b/a Indigo Wireless ("Indigo Wireless" or "Companies"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Indigo Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Indigo Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Indigo Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2025A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Raycom Electronics, Inc. ("Raycom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Raycom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Raycom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Raycom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2026A1.html
  • "Commission") and T/A Apartment Services, Inc. d/b/a Off Campus Telecommunications, Inc. ("T/A Apartment Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against T/A Apartment Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding T/A Apartment Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and T/A Apartment Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2027A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Shorelink Communications Corp. ("Shorelink" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Shorelink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Shorelink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Shorelink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2028A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services ("General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and General Dynamics-Satellite Communication Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2052A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and St. Olaf College ("St. Olaf" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against St. Olaf for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding St. Olaf's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and St. Olaf have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2053A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Outfitter Satellite, Inc. ("Outfitter Satellite" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Outfitter Satellite for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Outfitter Satellite's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Outfitter Satellite have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2054A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and A.M.S. Voicecom, Inc. ("A.M.S. Voicecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against A.M.S. Voicecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A.M.S. Voicecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and A.M.S. Voicecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2055A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Sumrada Communications Service, Inc. ("Sumrada" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Sumrada for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Sumrada's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Sumrada have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2056A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Huntleigh Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("Huntleigh Telecommunications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Huntleigh Telecommunications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Huntleigh Telecommunications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Huntleigh Telecommunications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2131A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Corporate Networking, Inc., ("Advanced" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Corporate Networking for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2135A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Answerphone Services, Inc. d/b/a Direct Page Communications ("Answerphone Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Answerphone Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Answerphone Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Answerphone Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2136A1.html
  • Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Utility Telephone, Inc. and Anew Telecommunications d/b/a Call America (jointly, "Utility" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Utility for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Utility's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Utility have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2137A1.html
  • Inc. d/b/a Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. and Reserve Long Distance Company, Inc. (jointly, "Reserve Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Reserve Telephone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Reserve Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Reserve Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2138A1.html
  • Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company ("Bluegrass" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Bluegrass Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Telephone Company for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Bluegrass's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Bluegrass have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2173A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and 3U Telecom, Inc. ("3U Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against 3U Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding 3U Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and 3U Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2174A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobilephone of Humboldt, Inc. ("Mobilephone of Humboldt" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobilephone of Humboldt for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilephone of Humboldt's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobilephone of Humboldt have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2175A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ImOn Communications, LLC ("ImOn" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ImOn Communications, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ImOn's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ImOn have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2176A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Professional Answering Service, Inc. ("Professional Answering Service" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Professional Answering Service for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Professional Answering Service's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Professional Answering Service have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2177A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and User Centric Communications, Inc. ("User Centric" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against User Centric for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding User Centric's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and User Centric have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2205A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Custom Tel, LLC ("Custom Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Custom Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Custom Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Custom Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2206A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Global Tech Telecommunications, Inc. ("Global Tech" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Global Tech for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Global Tech's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Global Tech have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2207A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and HUB Communications, Inc. ("HUB Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against HUB Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding HUB Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and HUB Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2208A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mountain Communications and Electronics, Inc. ("Mountain Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mountain Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mountain Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mountain Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2209A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telegration, Inc. ("Telegration" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telegration for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telegration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telegration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2224A1.html
  • terms and conditions of this Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification, and formally terminating the above-captioned Investigations. l. "Parties" means AT&T and the Bureau, each of which is a "Party." m. "Rules" means those rules and regulations codified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. III. BACKGROUND Investigation EB-09-TC-382 3. On June 1, 2009, pursuant to section 64.2009(f) of the Commission's rules, AT&T filed a notice with the Commission reporting failures in its customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") opt-out mechanism. According to AT&T, the CPNI toll-free number used by small business customers to opt-out was mistakenly disconnected. AT&T reported that when small business customers called the toll-free number during business hours, they were automatically routed to a call
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2272A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Parker FiberNet, LLC ("Parker FiberNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Parker FiberNet, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Parker FiberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Parker FiberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2273A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CP Telecom Inc. f/k/a ComputerPro, Inc. ("ComputerPro" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComputerPro for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComputerPro's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ComputerPro have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2274A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Unitycomm, LLC d/b/a U4Com ("Unitycomm" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Unitycomm for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Unitycomm's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Unitycomm have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2282A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2325A1.html
  • ("FCC" or "Commission") and A & W Communications, Inc. ("A & W Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against A & W Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding A & W Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and A & W Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2327A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Kelley's Tele-Communications, Inc. ("Kelley's Tele-Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Kelley's Tele-Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Kelley's Tele-Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Kelley's Tele-Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2328A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Mobilpage, Inc. ("Mobilpage" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Mobilpage for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Mobilpage's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Mobilpage have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2363A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Paxx Telecom, LLC ("Paxx Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Paxx Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Paxx Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Paxx Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2364A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Dunnell Tel. Co. ("Dunnell" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Dunnell for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Dunnell's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Dunnell have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2371A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2390A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and New Start Communication Corp. ("New Start" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Start for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Start's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Start have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-292A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). II. BACKGROUND
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-293A1.html
  • Adopted: February 25, 2010 Released: February 26, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I of this Order ("the Companies"), by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers, as provided by section 222 of the Act. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). II. BACKGROUND
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-692A1.html
  • North American Numbering Plan ("NANP") and Local Number Portability ("LNP") administration; and the submission of information as set forth on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q). The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ComSpan for possible violations of section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ComSpan's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. 2. The Bureau and ComSpan have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolve these matters. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-832A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. ("HBC"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against HBC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and HBC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-833A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. ("Shoreham"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Shoreham for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, and section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), regarding Shoreham's apparent failure to file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Shoreham have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1025A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Voip Alliance, LLC ("Voip Alliance"). Voip Alliance has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Voip Alliance is a prepaid calling card provider located in McAllen, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Voip Alliance is subject to the requirements of section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1026A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Touch-Tel USA, LLC ("Touch-Tel USA"). Touch-Tel USA has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Touch-Tel USA is a prepaid calling card provider located in Houston, Texas. As a telecommunications carrier, Touch-Tel USA is subject to the requirements of section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1028A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Phone Club Corporation ("Phone Club"). Phone Club has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Phone Club is a reseller of local and long distance telecommunications services located in Miami, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Phone Club is subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1029A1.html
  • Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina ("Nu Era Telecom"). Nu Era Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Nu Era Telecom is an interexchange telecommunications carrier located in Miami Beach, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Nu Era Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1031A1.html
  • June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. ("DigitGlobal Communications"). DigitGlobal Communications has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. DigitGlobal Communications is a telecommunications carrier located in Kew Gardens, New York. As a telecommunications carrier, DigitGlobal Communications is subject to the requirements of section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1032A1.html
  • Released: June 10, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com ("Straightel"). Straightel has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Straightel is a Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") and prepaid calling card carrier located in Miramar, Florida. As a telecommunications carrier, Straightel is subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1115A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Southwest Communications, Inc. ("Southwest Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Southwest Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Southwest Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Southwest Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1116A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and LGT - Latin Global Telecom, LLC ("LGT" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against LGT for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding LGT's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and LGT have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1142A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely and/or compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1150A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CCI Network Services, LLC ("CCI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1153A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Public Service Communications, Inc. ("Public Service Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Public Service Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Public Service Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Public Service Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1197A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Toly Digital Network, Inc. ("Toly Digital" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Toly Digital for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Toly Digital's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Toly Digital have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-119A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Advanced Business Integration Network ("Advance Business Integration" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advanced Business Integration Network for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advanced Business Integration's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advanced Business Integration have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-120A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Call-O-Call, Inc. ("Call-O-Call" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Call-O-Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call-O-Call's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Call-O-Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1220A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and AccessCom, Inc. ("AccessCom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against AccessCom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding AccessCom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and AccessCom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1258A1.html
  • follows upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Dezco Communications, Inc. ("Dezco Communications"). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Dezco Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Dezco Communications was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1259A1.html
  • Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Galaxy Internet Services, Inc.. ("Galaxy Internet Services"). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Galaxy Internet Services apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Galaxy Internet Services was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1436A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and New Bridge Technologies, Inc. ("New Bridge" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against New Bridge for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding New Bridge's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and New Bridge have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1469A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ValuTel Communications, Inc. ("ValuTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ValuTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ValuTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ValuTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1484A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Saving Call, LLC ("Saving Call" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Saving Call for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Saving Call's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Saving Call have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1497A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-14A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telebeep, Inc. ("Telebeep" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Telebeep for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telebeep's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telebeep have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1509A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Accutel of Texas, LP ("Accutel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Accutel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Accutel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Accutel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1510A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Revolution Communications Company, LTD ("Revolution Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Revolution Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Revolution Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Revolution Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1568A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Crossfire Telecommunications, LLC ("Crossfire" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Crossfire for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Crossfire's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Crossfire have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-15A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Multi Voice, Inc. ("Multi Voice" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Multi Voice for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Multi Voice's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Multi Voice have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1636A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NTS Services Corp. ("NTS" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NTS for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NTS's apparent failure to file timely a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NTS have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-16A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Lyca Tel, LLC ("Lyca Tel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Lyca Tel, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Lyca Tel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Lyca Tel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1710A1.html
  • Forfeiture of February 18, 2008, we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Blue Casa Communications, Inc. d/b/a Blue Casa Communications, LLC (Blue Casa or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Blue Casa apparently liable for a forfeiture for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Blue Casa was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In the Feb. 18, 2008 NAL, we
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1769A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1771A1.html
  • upon our Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc. (Intercel or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found Intercel apparently liable for a forfeiture for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that the Company had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, Intercel was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1794A1.html
  • a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 28, 2011 by Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot ("Think 12"). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for Think 12's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. II. Background 2. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois that resells interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements of section 222
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-17A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Clon Communications, LLC ("Clon" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Clon for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Clon's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Clon have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-186A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Royal Phone Company, LLC ("Royal Phone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Royal Phone for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Royal Phone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Royal Phone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1876A1.html
  • for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. (Unitec or Company). 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or the Communications Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1877A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the various Notices of Apparent Liability listed in the Appendix we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a compliant CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-187A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Franz, Inc. d/b/a Telelight, Inc. ("Franz" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Franz for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Franz's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Franz have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-188A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and CyberNet Communications, Inc. ("CyberNet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against CyberNet Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding CyberNet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and CyberNet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-189A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Davidson Telecom, LLC ("Davidson" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Davidson Telecom, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Davidson's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Davidson have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-18A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Central Communications Service Co. ("Central Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Central Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Central Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Central Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-190A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and International Access, Inc. ("International Access" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against International Access for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding International Access' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and International Access have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1944A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $29,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2008 and 2009. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-198A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine North, Inc. ("NationsLine North" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine North for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine North's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine North have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-199A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine Delaware, Inc. ("NationsLine Delaware" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine Delaware for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Delaware's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine Delaware have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-19A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Atlantic Telecom, Inc. ("Atlantic Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Atlantic Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Atlantic Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Atlantic Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-200A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine District of Columbia, Inc. ("NationsLine DC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine DC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine DC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine DC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-201A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine Virginia, Inc. ("NationsLine Virginia" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine Virginia for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine Virginia's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine Virginia have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-202A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NationsLine, Inc. ("NationsLine" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NationsLine for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NationsLine's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NationsLine have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-20A1.html
  • and Advantage Wireless Communications, Inc. d/b/a Almar Communications and Blackhawk Communications ("Advantage Wireless Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Advantage Wireless Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Advantage Wireless Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Advantage Wireless Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-275A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Delta Telecom, Inc. ("Delta Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Delta Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Delta Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Delta Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-277A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Coast International, Inc. ("Coast International" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Coast International for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Coast International's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Coast International have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-280A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Cyber Mesa Computer Systems, Inc. ("Cyber Mesa" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Cyber Mesa for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Cyber Mesa's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Cyber Mesa have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-299A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. ("DNA" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Digital Network Access Communications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding DNA's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and DNA have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-313A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Simplink Corporation ("Simplink" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Simplink for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Simplink's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Simplink have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-319A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NET/COMM Services, Corp. ("NET/COMM Services" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NET/COMM Services for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NET/COMM Services' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NET/COMM Services have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-321A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. ("TelePlus" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TelePlus Telecommunications, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TelePlus' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TelePlus have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-326A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Pacific Telecom Services, Inc. ("Pacific Telecom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Pacific Telecom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Pacific Telecom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Pacific Telecom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-32A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and PR Wireless, Inc. d/b/a OPEN Mobile ("PR Wireless" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against PR Wireless for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PR Wireless' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and PR Wireless have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-33A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and PiperTel Communications, LLC ("PiperTel" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against PiperTel for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding PiperTel's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and PiperTel have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-344A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Network Services Solutions, LLC ("Network Services Solutions" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Network Services Solutions for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Network Services Solutions' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Network Services Solutions have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-345A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Internet & Telephone, LLC ("Internet & Telephone" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Internet & Telephone, LLC for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Internet & Telephone's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Internet & Telephone have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-34A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and NetSpan Corporation d/b/a Foremost Telecommunications ("NetSpan Corporation" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against NetSpan Corporation for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NetSpan Corporation's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NetSpan Corporation have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-361A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and China Unicom (Americas) Operations Ltd. Corporation ("China Unicom" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against China Unicom for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding China Unicom's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and China Unicom have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-365A1.html
  • 25, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot ("Think 12") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Think 12 is a telecommunications carrier located in Itasca, Illinois providing resold interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Think 12 is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-36A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and North County Communications Corp. ("NCCC" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against North County Communications Corp. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding NCCC's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and NCCC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-371A1.html
  • Appendix I ) ) OMNIBUS NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: February 25, 2011 Released: February 25, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL"), we find that the companies listed in Appendix I ("the Companies"), have apparently willfully and repeatedly violated (1) section 64.2009(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") rules by failing to submit an annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") compliance certificate, and (2) an Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") order by failing to provide certain information regarding their CPNI filings. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding both apparent violations, we find that the Companies are each apparently
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-37A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Association Administrators, Inc. ("Association Administrators" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Association Administrators for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Association Administrators' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Association Administrators have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-38A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Ring Connection, Inc. ("Ring Connection" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Ring Connection for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Ring Connection's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Ring Connection have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-418A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Telecom Consultants, Inc. ("TCI" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against TCI for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding TCI's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and TCI have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-421A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Nationwide Telecom, Inc. ("Nationwide Telecom") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Nationwide Telecom is a telecommunications carrier located in West Hills, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Nationwide Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-422A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Calmtel USA, Inc. ("Calmtel USA") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Calmtel USA is a telecommunications carrier located in Los Angeles, California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, Calmtel USA is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-423A1.html
  • Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against Diamond Phone Card, Inc. ("Diamond Phone") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. Diamond Phone is a telecommunications carrier located in Elmhurst, New York providing prepaid phone card services. As a telecommunications carrier, Diamond Phone is subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-424A1.html
  • 2011 Released: March 3, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against USA Teleport, Inc. ("USA Teleport") for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. USA Teleport is a telecommunications carrier located in North Miami Beach, Florida providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USA Teleport is subject to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-487A1.html
  • Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Integrated Telemanagement Services, Inc. d/b/a OMNICOM ("Integrated Telemanagement" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Integrated Telemanagement for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Integrated Telemanagement's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Integrated Telemanagement have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-545A1.html
  • of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Tele Circuit Network Corporation ("Tele Circuit" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Tele Circuit for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Tele Circuit's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Tele Circuit have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-546A1.html
  • the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Westgate Communications, LLC d/b/a WeavTel ("Westgate Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Westgate Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Westgate Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Westgate Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-556A1.html
  • the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and ZTG, Inc. ("ZTG" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against ZTG for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding ZTG's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and ZTG have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-587A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forefeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-69A1.html
  • and United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One ("Call One" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against United Communications Systems, Inc. d/b/a Call One for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Call One's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Call One have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-70A1.html
  • Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. ("Telestar" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against U.S. Telestar Communication Group, Inc. for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Telestar's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Telestar have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-71A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Latino Communications Corp. ("Latino Communications" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Latino Communications for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Latino Communications' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Latino Communications have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-72A1.html
  • ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Team Electronics, Inc. ("Team Electronics" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Team Electronics for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Team Electronics' apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Team Electronics have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-73A1.html
  • Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Neutral Tandem, Inc. ("Neutral" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Neutral Tandem for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Neutral's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Neutral have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-742A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-743A1.html
  • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $25,000 each for repeatedly violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, because it appeared that they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar years 2007and 2008. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-802A1.html
  • the Commission's rules, we deny a Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 8, 2011, by USA Teleport, Inc. ("USAT"). The object of the Petition for Reconsideration is a Forfeiture Order imposing a $20,000 forfeiture for USTA's willful and repeated failure to file a timely Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") compliance certification for the calendar year 2007, in violation of section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules; paragraphs 51 and 53 of the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order; and, by extension, section 222 of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied. II. Background 2. USAT is a telecommunications carrier, located in North Miami Beach, Florida, that provides interexchange services. As a telecommunications carrier, USAT is subject to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-813A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") and Metronet Telecom, Inc. ("Metronet" or "Company"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") by the Bureau against Metronet for possible violation of section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 222, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e), and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order, regarding Metronet's apparent failure to timely file a compliant annual customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") certification pursuant to section 64.2009(e). 2. The Bureau and Metronet have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-994A1.html
  • our Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("Omnibus NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on the companies listed in the Appendix. 2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order because it appeared they had not filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-999A1.html
  • June 6, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION and background 1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) against 88 Telecom Corporation ("88 Telecom"). 88 Telecom has willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008. 2. 88 Telecom is a prepaid calling card telecommunications carrier located in San Francisco, California. As a telecommunications carrier, 88 Telecom is subject to the requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-267A1.html
  • and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning various regulatory fee and reporting obligations as well as required contributions to the Universal Service Fund, the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, and the North American Numbering Plan and Local Number Portability administration. The Consent Decree also terminates an investigation by the Bureau into possible violations of Section 222 of the Act, Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order regarding BSCI's customer proprietary network information obligations. 2. A copy of the Consent Decree negotiated by the Bureau and BSCI is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-628A1.html
  • between the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and Ztar Mobile, Inc. (Ztar). The Consent Decree resolves and terminates the Bureau's investigations into Ztar's compliance with Section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules (Rules) concerning the deployment of digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets and with Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), Section 64.2009(e) of the Rules, and the EPIC CPNI Order, concerning the filing of an annual Customer Proprietary Network Information certification. 2. The Bureau and Ztar have negotiated the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-06-223A1.html
  • you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** DA 06-223 Released: January 30, 2006 Enforcement Bureau Directs All Telecommunications Carriers to Submit CPNI Compliance Certifications In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) directs all telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless carriers, to submit a compliance certificate to the Commission as required by section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules.1 Carrier certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with the rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),2 requires that telecommunications carriers
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-06-258A1.html
  • about the safeguards employed by the companies handling their private information and contacted the Bureau seeking information about the CPNI compliance certifications. Opening a new docket will enable the public to more easily access these carrier certificates. Carrier compliance certificates for the most recent period, along with the accompanying statement explaining how their respective operating procedures ensure compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, must be filed no later than Monday, February 6, 2006, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Any CPNI compliance certifications already filed electronically with the Commission will be moved to the new docket by Commission staff. Carriers do not need to re-file their certifications. Filing Procedures Carriers' reports, to be filed on or before February
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-08-171A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 08-171 January 29, 2008 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications ("CPNI Certifications") pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed no later than March 1, 2008, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On April
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-09-240A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 09-240 February 13, 2009 Enforcement Bureau Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) again reminds all companies subject to its CPNI rules of their obligation to file their CPNI Certification no later than March 1, 2009. Certifications must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided below. Background. On April 2, 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-09-9A1.html
  • 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. ***************************************************************** DA 09-9 January 7, 2009 EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) EB Docket No. 06-36 In this Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) responds to requests for guidance on the suggested format and procedures for the filing of annual CPNI compliance certifications (CPNI Certifications) pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). CPNI Certifications must be filed annually between January 1 and March 1, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Background. On
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-10-91A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-159A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-12-170A1.html
  • requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and terminate calls to the public switched network." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.3. Is there an exemption for small companies? No, there is no exemption for small companies. Section 64.2009(e) - the annual certification filing requirement - applies regardless of the size of the company. What must be included in the filing? The certification must include all of the elements listed below: * an officer of the company must sign the compliance certificate; * the officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/Welcome.html
  • 05-19-2010 [36]States that Have Certified that They Regulate Pole Attachments 01-15-2010 [37]Enforcement Bureau Takes Action to Enhance Access to Digital Wireless Service for Individuals with Hearing Disabilities 01-15-2010 [38]Annual CPNI Certicifations Due March 1, 2010 02-13-2009 [39]EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 01-07-2009 [40]EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 03-21-2008 [41]Corrected List of States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments - WC Docket No. 07-245 01-29-2008 [42]EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e) 09-07-2006 [43]FCC Announces Filing Procedures
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/TPI.html
  • information (CPNI) issues 04-28-2009 $4,000 Forfeiture against [389]1st United Tel-Com, Inc. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 02-24-2009 $4,000 forfeiture proposed against [390]Leflore Communications, Inc. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 02-13-2009 [391]Public Notice EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 01-07-2009 [392]Public Notice EB Provides Guidance on Filing of 2008 Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 02-19-2008 $100,000 Consent Decree with [393]CTC Communications Corp. concerning customer proprietary network information (CPNI) issues 01-29-2008 [394]Public Notice - EB Provides Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. 64.2009(e) 11-29-2007 $100,000 Forfeiture
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/eabydate.html
  • residential or cellular telephone lines 02-13-2009 [655]Citation issued to Bank Card POS LLC for apparent violation of the TCPA and Commission's rules regarding delivering prerecorded unsolicited advertisements to residential or cellular telephone lines 02-13-2009 [656]Public Notice EB Reminds Carriers of March 1 Deadline and Provides Further Guidance on Filing of Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certifications Under 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(e) 02-13-2009 $4,500 Forfeiture against [657]Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. concerning violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Unsolicited Junk Faxes) 02-12-2009 [658]Citation issued to Lowe's Companies, Inc. for apparent violation of the TCPA and Commission's rules regarding delivering prerecorded unsolicited advertisements to residential or cellular telephone lines 02-12-2009 [659]Citation issued to Proficient Marketing LLC for apparent violation of the TCPA
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/filing.html
  • Process * [30]Section 1.8001 Commission Registration System (CORES) * [31]Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) [ARMIS Reports 43-01 through 43-08 and ARMIS Reports 495-A and 495-B.] * [32]Section 43.21(c) Letter [Formerly Form P.] * [33]Interstate Service Tariff * [34]Section 64.709 Interstate Service INFORMATIONAL Tariff Requirement * [35]Section 64.1195 Carrier Registration Requirement * [36]Section 64.1900 Geographic Rate Averaging Certification * [37]Section 64.2009 Annual CPNI Compliance Certification * [38]Section 64.2105 Creation and Filing of System Security and Integrity Manuals as required by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) * [39]Section 64.5001 Quarterly PIU Reporting and Certification * [40]Regulatory Fees [41]Additional Requirements that Apply to International Service Providers * [42]International Section 214 Approval * [43]International Service Tariff * [44]Section 43.61 International Traffic