Federal Communications Commission DA 09-765
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
WorldNet, L.L.C.
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-08-SE-706
NAL/Acct. No. 200932100053
FRN 0004937116
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER
Adopted: April 3, 2009 Released:  April 3, 2009
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (“NAL”), we find that 
WorldNet, L.L.C. (“WorldNet”) apparently willfully violated a Commission Order in failing to respond to a 
Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) from the Enforcement Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division.  We conclude, 
pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”),1 that WorldNet is 
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). We also order 
WorldNet to respond fully to the LOI within ten (10) days of release of this NAL. If WorldNet again fails 
to submit a complete response, it will be subject to further enforcement action.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On October 23, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau’s (“Bureau”) Spectrum Enforcement 
Division (“Division”) issued an LOI directing WorldNet to provide certain information and documents 
regarding its compliance with the network outage reporting requirements.2 The LOI was sent to 
WorldNet via facsimile and by certified mail with return receipt requested, and the Bureau subsequently 
received confirmation that the facsimile transmission was successful, and that the LOI that was sent by 
certified mail was delivered to WorldNet on October 28, 2008.  As of the date of this NAL, the Division 
has not received a response to the LOI. 
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Respond to the LOI
3. We find that WorldNet’s failure to respond to the Division’s inquiry constitutes an 
apparent willful3 violation of a Commission Order.  The Division directed WorldNet to provide certain 
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).  
2 Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission to Ms. Debra R. Schmidt, Director of Telephony Services, WorldNet, L.L.C. (Oct. 
23, 2008) (“LOI”).  
3 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, 
irrespective of any intent to violate” the law. 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  The legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) of 
the Act indicates that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-
765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.  
See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 ¶ 5 
(1991) (“Southern California Broadcasting”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-765
2
information and documents related to the company’s compliance with the network outage reporting 
requirements.  This information was necessary to enable the Commission to perform its enforcement 
function and evaluate whether WorldNet violated the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”).
4. Section 218 of the Act specifically authorizes the Commission to “obtain from ... carriers 
... full and complete information necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry out 
the objects for which it was created.”4 In addition, the Commission has broad investigatory authority 
under Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act, its Rules, and relevant precedent.  Section 4(i) authorizes the 
Commission to “issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of 
its functions.”5 Section 4(j) states that “the Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as 
will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.”6 Section 403 grants the 
Commission “full authority and power to institute an inquiry, on its own motion ... relating to the 
enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act.”7 Numerous FCC decisions have reaffirmed the 
Commission’s authority to investigate potential misconduct and punish those that disregard FCC 
inquiries.8  
5. There is no question that WorldNet received the October 23, 2008 LOI, as evidenced by 
confirmation of the facsimile transmission and the certified mail return receipt.  Since WorldNet received 
the LOI, it has neither contacted the Division nor submitted a response to the Division’s inquiry.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
6. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined by the Commission 
to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or 
order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.9 To impose
such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against 
whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture 
penalty should be imposed.10 The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule.11 We conclude under this 
standard that WorldNet is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful violation of a
Commission Order.  
  
4 47 U.S.C. § 218.  
5 47 U.S.C. § 154(i).
6 47 U.S.C. § 154(j).
7 47 U.S.C. § 403.
8 See, e.g., Cablevision Systems Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, DA 09-119 (Enf. Bur., 
rel. January 19, 2009) (proposing a forfeiture of $25,000 for failing to respond fully to an LOI); Connect Paging, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 6303, 6306 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (proposing 
$4,000 forfeiture for failure to respond to an LOI); Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3684, 3688 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (proposing an $11,000 
forfeiture for failure to respond to an LOI); Digital Antenna, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7600, 7602 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (proposing $11,000 forfeiture for failure to 
respond to provide a complete response to an LOI). 
9 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  
10 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 
11 See, e.g., BigZoo.Com Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 3954, 3955 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (forfeiture paid).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-765
3
7. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act,12 we may assess a common carrier a forfeiture of 
up to $150,000 for each violation, or for each day of a continuing violation up to a maximum of 
$1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act.  In exercising such authority, we are required to take into 
account “the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, 
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice 
may require.”13
8. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a 
base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications.14  We find that 
WorldNet’s failure to respond to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants an increase to this 
base amount.  Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission’s authority and threatens to 
compromise the Commission’s ability to adequately investigate violations of its rules.  Prompt and full 
responses to Division inquiry letters are essential to the Commission’s enforcement function.  In this case, 
WorldNet’s apparent violations have delayed our investigation in an area of critical importance, namely, 
network outage reporting.15  
9. Based on these facts, we therefore propose a twenty thousand dollar ($20,000) forfeiture 
against WorldNet for failing to respond to Commission communications.  This forfeiture amount is 
consistent with precedent in similar cases, where companies failed to provide responses to Bureau 
inquiries concerning compliance with the Commission’s Rules despite evidence that the LOIs had been 
received.16
10. We also direct WorldNet to respond fully to the October 23, 2008 LOI within ten (10) 
  
12 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B).  The Commission has amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3), 
three times to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements 
contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2461.  See Amendment of Section 1.80 of 
the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) 
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,300,000 to 
$150,000/$1,500,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima 
to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945, 10947 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for 
common carriers from $120,000/$1,200,000 to $130,000/$1,300,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221, 18223 
(2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from $100,000/$1,000,000 to 
$120,000/$1,200,000).  The most recent inflation adjustment took effect September 2, 2008 and only applies to 
violations that occur after that date.  See 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.  As WorldNet’s apparent violations occurred after 
September 2, 2008, they are therefore subject to the new forfeiture limits.
13 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment 
Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
14 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4); The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the 
Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 
FCC Rcd. 303 (1999).
15 In New Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 19 FCC Rcd 16830, 16833 (2004) (adopting 47 C.F.R. Part 4), the 
Commission recognized “the critical need for rapid, complete, and accurate information on service disruptions that 
could affect homeland security, public health or safety, and the economic well-being of our Nation.”    
16 See supra note 8.  See also, Liberty Phones, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 22 FCC 
Rcd 17264 (Enf. Bur., Inv. & Hearings Div. 2007) (proposing a $20,000 forfeiture for failure to respond to an LOI); 
Universal Telecommunications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 6579, 6582 
(Enf. Bur. 2006) (proposing a $20,000 forfeiture for failure to respond to an LOI); BigZoo.Com Corporation, Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24437, 24441 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (proposing a $20,000 
forfeiture for failure to respond to an LOI). These cases ordered or proposed forfeitures of $20,000 for common 
carriers who failed to respond to Commission communications. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-765
4
days of the release of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order.  Failure to do so may 
constitute an additional violation subjecting WorldNet to further penalties, including potentially higher 
monetary forfeitures.17
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 
1.80 of the Rules, and the authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, WorldNet, L.L.C. 
is NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty 
thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of a Commission Order.
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty 
(30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, WorldNet 
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 218 and 403, WorldNet shall 
fully respond to the October 23, 2008 Letter of Inquiry sent by the Enforcement Bureau’s Spectrum 
Enforcement Division in the manner described by that Letter of Inquiry within ten (10) days of the release 
of this Notice of Apparent Liability and Order.
14. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the 
order of the Federal Communications Commission.  The payment must include the NAL/Account 
Number and FRN Number referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be mailed to 
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.  Payment by 
overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.  For payment by credit card, 
an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter 
the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in 
block number 24A (payment type code).  Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be 
sent to:  Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, 
Washington, D.C. 20554.  Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 
or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.  WorldNet will 
also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Ricardo Durham at 
Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov and to Deborah Broderson at Deborah.Broderson@fcc.gov. 
15. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement 
Bureau – Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.  
The response should also be e-mailed to Ricardo Durham, Senior Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement 
Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, at Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov and to Deborah Broderson, Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, FCC, at Deborah.Broderson@fcc.gov.
16. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 
claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:  (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-
year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) 
some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial 
status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the 
financial documentation submitted.
  
17 We do not decide in this NAL whether the failure to respond to an LOI constitutes a continuing violation.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-765
5
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture and Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Ms. 
Debra R. Schmidt, Director of Telephony Services, WorldNet, L.L.C., 1 Riverfront Plaza, Suite 301, 
Lawrence, Kansas 66044.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau