RON OHNSON WISCONSIN CHA MAN 
JOHN M CAIN AIUZONA 
ROB PORTMAN OHIO 
RAM> PAUL 1<.I NT\JCl(V 
JMICS LANO(fORD OKLAJiC~IA 
MICllACL 8 EN1l. WYOM ~'G 
JOH'I HOfVE.N NORTH DMOTA 
SlCVE Ol\INtS, MONTA"IA 
CLAIRE M<CA.5KILL WSSOURI 
JHOA.•AS R CARPEi\. OCLAWA/1£ 
JO'< Tf5TFR MONTANA 
HEIOI HEITKAMP. NORTH DAKOTA 
GARY C. P£TUIS MlCHlGAN 
MARGAREI WOOD HASSAN '<tW HMll'SHIRE 
KAMALA 0 HA!!RIS. CAllFOR"llA Bnitcd ~rates ~cnatc 
COMMITTEE ON 
Cl<RISTOPHER R HIXON. STAff DIRCCT( R 
MARGARH£ OAUM MINOAHYSlAJPDIHlt;TOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 
The Honorable Ajit Pai 
Chairman 
Federal Communications Commission 
445 12th Street, SW 
Washington, DC 20554 
Dear Mr. Pai: 
WASHINGTON, DC 20510--6250 
December l, 2017 
I am writing to request information about the steps the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) is taking to recover the $89,534,861 in forfeiture penalties it proposed 
nearly four years ago against Lifeline carriers that had profited from violating program rules. 1 
We appreciate your assistance with this request. 
During the hearing the Committee held in September 2017 to examine waste, fraud, and 
abuse throughout the Life line program, you testified that holding unscrupulous Lifeline 
providers accountable is a priority for the FCC under your leadership.2 It is critical that the 
FCC Enforcement Bureau acts swiftly and aggressively to hold companies accountable for 
violating Lifeline program rules and to protect taxpayers and the low-income Americans who 
rely on Lifeline for necessary communications services. 
Between September 2013 and February 2014, the FCC issued Notices of Apparent 
Liabil ity (NALs) to 12 Li feline providers, proposing more than $94 million in forfeitures for 
enrolling ineligible subscribers:' To date, only one of the 12 NALs has led to any public 
1 See, Attachment A. 
2 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on 
FCC 's Lifeline Program: A Case S1udy of Government Waste and Mismanagement, I 15th 
Cong. (Sept. 14, 2017). 
3 Easy Telephone Services d/b/a Easy Wireless, Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, FCC 13-129 (Sept. 30, 2013); Icon Telecom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, FCC 13-130 (Sept. 30, 2013); Assist Wireless, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture, FCC 13-131 (Sept. 30, 2013); UTPhone, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, FCC 13-132 (Sept. 30, 2013); TracFone Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 13-133 (Sept. 30, 2013); Conexions, LLC dlbla Conexion 
Wireless, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 13-145 (Nov. 1, 2013); I-wireless, 
LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 13-148 (Nov. l, 2013); True Wireless, 
LLC, Notice of Apparent Liabi lity for Forfeiture, FCC 13-149 (Nov. I , 2013); Te/rite 
Corporation dlbla L{fe Wireless, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 13-154 
(Dec. 11, 2013); Global Connection Inc. of America dlb/a Stand Up Wireless, Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 13-155 (Dec. 9, 2013); Cintex Wireless, LLC, Notice of 
1028
The Honorable Ajit Pai 
Decen1 her I. 201 7 
Page 2 
fortE:iture, which occurred only after the matter was referred to the Justice Departme11t for 
cri1ninal prosecution:' Of the 12 Lifeline carriers that were the subject oftl1ese NALs, ten 
continued to receive Lifeline disbtrrsen1ents. 5 Fron1 2014 througl1 2016, tl1ese ten carriers 
received nlore than $2.4 billion in I~ifeline subsidies, just over 50% of all Lifeline funds 
disbursed by USAC durit1g that 3-year period. 6 
In order to better understand the status of FCC Lifeline enforcen1ent actions taken prior 
to your appointinent as Chairn1an, as well as the steps you are taki11g to hold Lifeli11e providers 
accountable for progra1n abuses, we respectfully request that yott provide the following 
information on or before Decen1ber 22, 2017. 
1. In September 2016, then FCC Cl1airman Wl1eeler stated that the cases associated \Vi th 
the 12 NALs had been referred to the FCC Office of Inspector General (OIG) and that 
six of these cases had been closed with no further enforceme11t action. 7 
a. For each oftl1e con1pa11ies listed in Attachn1ent A, please explain whether the 
associated case has been closed by the FCC. 
b. For each closed case identified, please identify the followi11g: the date the case was 
closed; the an1ount of any repayn1ents made to the Universal Service Fund (USF) in 
connection with the case; and the date an)' such repay1nents were made to the USF. 
2. Please describe the status ofeacl1 case tl1at has not been closed, including any steps the 
FCC has taken lo impose or collect a monetary forfeiture penalty since isstting a NAL 
to tl1at co1npany. 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 13-156 (Dec. 9, 2013); Budget PrePay, Inc. d/bla 
Budget 1\,fobile, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 14-19 (Feb. 28, 2014). 
4 See, U.S. Attorney's Office for tl1e Western District of Oklahoma, Icon Telecon1 and 
its 01rner Plecrcl Guil(v l1nd I1gree to Forfeit more than $27 Million in connection ivith Federal 
lf'ireless Telephone ,)ubsil/y Progran1 (June 12, 2014) (WW\v.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/icon-
te t econ1-and-i ts-owner-p I ead-gu i lty-ru1d-agree-f orfei t-rnore-2 7 -mi 11 ion-connection). 
5 The two carriers who did not co11tinue to receive disbursements are Icon Telecon1 and 
Conexions, LLC. Icon was suspended from participating in Lifeline as a result of the related 
cri1ninal action. See Icon 7'elecon1, Inc., Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment 
Proceeding, DA 15-627 (May 26, 2015). Conexions, LLC, ended its participation in the 
Lifeline progran1 after the FCC declined to approve the con1pa11y's compliance plru1 i112014. 
See Conexions LI~(~ lllbla C'onexion it1ireless Complia11ce Plan, Order DA-14-1724 (Nov. 26, 
2014). 
6 See Attachn1cnt A. 
7 Response to Written Qt1estions Subn1itted by Sen. McCaskill to Tom Wheeler, 
Chainnan, FCC, Senate Con11nittee on Co1nmerce, Science, and Transportation, Heari11g on 
Oversight o,f the f"ederl1/ Co1111nunications Co1nmissio11, I 14th Cong. (Sept. 15, 2016). 
The Honorable Aj it Pai 
December 1, 2017 
Page 3 
3. Please describe any steps the FCC bas taken to ensure that claims for Lifeline support 
reimbursement submitted by each company listed in Attachment A after that company 
had received a NAL, did not include claims for ineligible subscribers. 
4. Please describe the FCC's authority to terminate Lifeline participation for providers 
who have received a NAL. Please explain why, despite the FCC's opinion that these 
companies profited by "apparently willfully and repeatedly" violating program rules, 
the FCC continues to allow these companies to participate.8 
5. Please list all officia l enforcement actions (other than the 12 NALs issued between 
September 2013 and February 2014) that the FCC has taken since 2012 in connection 
with the Lifeline program, and for each please identify the following: 
a. Date of the action; 
b. Type of act ion (NAL, consent decree, etc.); 
c. The subject(s) of the action; 
d. The nature of the alleged or admitted violation; 
e. Any non-monetary penalty proposed or imposed in connection with the action; 
f. The amount of any monetary forfeiture proposed in connection with the action; 
g. The amount of any monetary forfeiture imposed in connection with the action; and, 
h. The date any such monetary forfeiture was actually recovered. 
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please have your staff contact 
Claudine Brenner with my staff at Claudine_Brenner@hsgac.senate.gov or (202) 224-2627 
with any questions. Please send any official correspondence related to this request to 
Lucy_ Balcezak@hsgac.senate.gov. 
Sincerely, 
Claire McCaskill 
Ranking Member 
8 See. e.g., Budget PrePay, Inc. d/bla Budget Mobile, Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, FCC 14-19 (Feb. 28, 2014). 
The f-Ionorablc Ajit Pai 
Decen1ber I, 2017 
Page 4 
cc: Ron Johnson 
Chairman 
The l·Ionorable Mignon Clyburn 
Cotnn1issioner 
Federal Con11nunications Con11nission 
The r-Ionorable Michael O'Riclly 
Co1n1nissioner 
Federal Con1111unications Con11nission 
The Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel 
Con1111issioner 
Federal Co111n1unications Comn1ission 
The Honorable Brendan Carr 
Con1111issioner 
Federal Con11nunications Con1mission 
The Honorable Ajit Pai 
Dece1nber 1, 2017 
Page 5 
Attacl1ment A 
Company Proposed 
(Sub,iect of FCC NAL) Fine 
I. Easy Telephone Services d/b/a Easy $1,586,545 Wireless 
2. Assist Wireless. LLC $2,203,977 
0 UTPhone, Inc. $1,234,456 o. 
4. 'J'racfone Wireless, Inc. $4,573,376 
5. Conexions, IJLC d/b/a Conexion $18,397,814 Wireless 
6. f·wireless. LLC $8,753,074 
7. True Wireless. Ll,C $5,501,285 
8. l'elrite Corporation d/b/a Life Wireless $22,399,761 
9. Global Con11ection I11c. of An1erica d/b/a $11,702,695 Stand Up Wireless 
10. Cintex Wireless, LLC $9,461,978 
11. Budget PrePay, Inc. d/b/a Budget Mobile $3,719,900 
TOTAL $89,534,861 
Lifeline Disbursements 
Received (2014-2016)9 
$53,514,493 
$105,003,487 
$8,675,032 
$1,364,425,603 
NIA 
$282, 134,054 
$41,577,861 
$263,955,544 
$23,591,464 
$2,323,700 
$272,196,307 
$2,417,397,545 
9 Disbttrsement data obtained fron1 the Universal Service Adn1inistrative Co1npany's 
online "Funding Disbursement Search" tool (usac.org/li/tools/disbursernents/default.aspx).