Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-165
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Kurtis J. Kintzel, Keanan Kintzel, and all Entities 
by which they do business before the Federal 
Communications Commission
Resellers of Telecommunications Services
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
EB Docket No. 07-197
File No. EB-06-IH-5037
FRN:  0007179054
NAL/Acct. No.  200732080029
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING
Adopted:  September 10, 2007 Released:   September 10, 2007
By the Commission:
I.     INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, we commence an 
evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge to determine, among other things, whether the 
authority granted to Kurtis J. Kintzel, Keanan Kintzel, and any and all entities in which they are 
principals and/or do business,1 to operate as common carriers, pursuant to Section 214 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, should be revoked and, further, whether Kurtis J. Kintzel, 
Keanan Kintzel, and any and all entities in which they are or may be principals and/or by which they do, 
or may do business, should be required to refrain from providing any interstate common carrier services 
in the future without first obtaining prior Commission consent.  As discussed below, entities providing 
interstate common carrier services owned and controlled by the Kintzel brothers apparently willfully and 
repeatedly violated multiple terms of a Consent Decree to which they were signatories and apparently 
willfully and repeatedly violated multiple Commission rules and provisions of the Act relating to the 
provision of interstate common carrier services.  Such apparent violations, and a lengthy history of 
noncompliance before the Commission, raise material and substantial questions regarding the basic 
qualifications of the Kintzel brothers to engage in the provision of interstate common carrier services 
now and in the future.  
II.     BACKGROUND
A. The BOI Consent Decree
2. Business Options, Inc. (“BOI”) is an entity controlled by the Kintzel brothers and which 
operates as an interstate telecommunications service provider.  As early as 2002, the Enforcement Bureau 
began receiving consumer complaints about BOI’s operations, particularly its efforts to market services 
  
1 According to Commission records, Kurtis J. Kintzel and his brother, Keanan Kintzel, are or have been principals in 
entities doing business before the Commission as Business Options, Inc., Buzz Telecom Corporation, Link 
Technologies, AVATAR, and US Bell Corporation.  For the purposes of this Order to Show Cause and Notice of 
Opportunity for Hearing, Kurtis J. Kintzel and Keanan Kintzel will be referred to as the “Kintzel brothers.”  Such 
reference includes any and all entities in which they are principals, that they control and/or by which they do 
business.  
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
2
to new customers. On April 7, 2003, following a full investigation by the Enforcement Bureau, the 
Commission released an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing in EB Docket No. 
03-85 (“the earlier proceeding”),  initiating an evidentiary hearing against BOI.2 The BOI Show Cause 
Order directed the Presiding Administrative Law Judge (“Presiding Judge”) to determine, among other 
things: whether BOI had intentionally provided incorrect or misleading information to the Commission;3
whether BOI had engaged in unlawful “slamming” activities by changing consumers’ long distance 
providers without authorization in violation of Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120(a)(1) of the 
Commission’s rules;4 whether BOI failed to file registration statements required under Section 64.1195 
of the Commission’s rules; and whether BOI discontinued service to the public in violation of Section 
214 of the Act and Section 63.71 of the Commission’s rules.5 After the hearing was commenced, 
additional issues were added to determine whether BOI had properly filed Telecommunications 
Reporting Worksheets, and made all required contributions to the Universal Service Fund (“USF”) and 
Telecommunications Relay Services Fund (“TRS”), respectively6.  
3. On December 9, 2003, and December 24, 2003, the Presiding Judge issued orders 
granting the Enforcement Bureau’s motions for summary decision adverse to BOI on several key issues.7
In the December 9, 2003 order, the Presiding Judge concluded that BOI had indeed engaged in 
“slamming” activities on at least 16 separate occasions, failed to file an FCC Form 499A 
(Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet) as required by Section 64.1195 of the Commission’s rules, 
and discontinued service in violation of Section 214 of the Act and Section 63.71 of the Commission’s 
rules.8 In the December 24, 2003 order, the Presiding Judge concluded that BOI had failed to make 
required universal service and TRS payments.9  
4. BOI faced possible sanctions for each of these violations, including $80,000 for each of 
the 16 “slamming” violations; up to $120,000 for unlawfully discontinuing service; and up to $3,000 for its 
failure to file a sworn statement.  According to the Presiding Judge’s December 24, 2003 order, BOI also 
faced possible sanctions of $115,533.52 for failure to make required universal service contributions, 
$10,000 for failure to file required Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets, and $10,000 for failure to 
make required TRS contributions.  Prior to final disposition of the hearing, however, the Enforcement 
Bureau and BOI entered into a consent decree (“Consent Decree”), pursuant to Section 1.93(b) of the 
  
2 See, Business Options, Inc., Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 18 FCC Rcd 6881 
(2003) (“BOI 2003 Show Cause Order”).
3 Id. at 6887 (¶16).
4 See 47 C.F.R. §64.1120(a)(1).  Slamming refers to the practice of executing a change in a subscriber’s telephone 
exchange service or telephone toll service without the subscriber’s authorization and/or without following the 
verification procedures established by the Commission
5 See BOI 2003 Show Cause Order, at 6892-93 (¶¶ 27-31).
6 See Section 54.706 of the Commission’s rules relating to payment of universal contributions.  See also Section 
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission’s rules relating to payment of Telecommunications Relay Services 
contributions.
7 See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-54, released December 9, 2003, and see also Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-58, released December 24, 2003.     
8 See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-54, released December 9, 2003.
9 See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-58, released December 24, 2003.
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
3
Commission’s rules.10
5. The terms of the Consent Decree specifically applied to all entities owned, directed, or 
controlled by the Kintzel brothers,11 and was intended to ensure their future compliance with Sections 
214, 254, and 258 of the Act12 and related Commission rules.  The Consent Decree contemplated a 
voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury in the total amount of $510,000 to be paid in 48 
scheduled monthly installments;13 payment of all outstanding universal service and TRS debts;14 and 
timely payment of all future universal service and TRS assessments.15 In addition, the Kintzel brothers 
agreed to henceforth obtain all appropriate and necessary authorizations prior to discontinuing service in 
any state and to implement procedures regarding marketing of services to new customers and verification 
procedures related to these marketing efforts. The Consent Decree also required the filing of regular 
reports with the Commission relating to compliance with various Commission rules and Consent Decree 
requirements.16  The Presiding Judge approved the Consent Decree and terminated the BOI hearing on 
February 20, 2004.17
B.  Post-Consent Decree Misconduct
6. In the fall of 2006, the Enforcement Bureau received information indicating that the 
Kintzel brothers had discontinued making the required regularly scheduled monthly installment payments 
toward satisfaction of their voluntary contribution under the 2004 Consent Decree.  The information also 
suggested that an entity controlled by the Kintzel brothers, and subject to the terms of the Consent 
Decree, Buzz Telecom Corporation (“Buzz”), had unlawfully discontinued service to the public, and 
failed to pay required universal service and TRS assessments.  Both Buzz and BOI are entities controlled 
by the Kintzel brothers that apparently operated separately; both resold the interstate voice 
telecommunications services of other carriers to business and residential subscribers; and both were 
signatories subject to the Consent Decree.
7. During the last quarter of 2006, the Commission also received a number of consumer 
complaints alleging that Buzz, like BOI, had engaged in prohibited slamming and/or cramming activities. 
Consequently, the Enforcement Bureau, on December 20, 2006, initiated an investigation of, and 
directed a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to, Buzz and BOI requiring the production of various documents and 
responses to interrogatories concerning these allegations.  
  
10 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.93(b).
11 See Consent Order, FCC 04M-08, released February 20, 2004 (“2004 Consent Decree”), at ¶2(c).  See also 
Presiding Judge Order Approving Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 2916 (2004) (“Approving Order”) (noting “BOI, its 
affiliates (Buzz and U.S. Bell) and their management company, Avatar Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, the 
“Companies”), and the Bureau have entered into a Consent Decree which would resolve all of the issues.  Approval 
of the Consent Decree authorizes terminating this proceeding.”)
12 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 214, 254 and 258. 
13 Consent Decree at ¶15.
14 Id. at ¶14 (h)-(i). 
15 Id. at ¶14 (f)-(g).
16 Id. at ¶14 (o).
17 See Approving Order, 19 FCC Rcd 2916 (2004).
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
4
8. By letter dated January 17, 2007, Kurtis Kintzel replied to the LOI on behalf of Buzz and 
BOI. In his LOI Response, Kintzel admitted that the voluntary contribution of $510,000 had not been 
completely satisfied, and that $192,600 was past due.  Kintzel attributed the failure to comply with the 
required payment schedule to a shortage of working capital resulting from protracted litigation and a 
shrinking customer base. Kintzel also conceded that Buzz and BOI had discontinued service to all 
customers in each state where they had been providing services despite having failed to request and 
obtain Commission authorization to do so.  In addition, despite information from the Universal Service 
Administrative Company (“USAC”) and the National Exchange Carrier Association (“NECA”) that Buzz 
had failed to make required universal service and TRS payments, Kintzel represented in his LOI response 
that the entities that he and his brother controlled were up to date and in compliance with all such 
obligations.  Kintzel’s LOI Response also failed to provide any information about the multiple slamming 
and cramming complaints the Commission had received from consumers.  This failure compelled the 
Enforcement Bureau to direct a follow-up communication to Kintzel requesting the same information.  
Kintzel again failed to provide the requested information.  In addition, despite the Enforcement Bureau’s 
request, Kintzel failed to produce information about slamming and cramming complaints that Buzz had 
received directly from consumers.    
III.  DISCUSSION
A. Apparent Violations of the 2004 Consent Decree
9. A consent order adopted pursuant to Section 1.93 of the Commission’s rules is an order 
of the Commission under Section 416 of the Act.18  All persons, agents, and employees of an entity 
subject to the order must observe and comply with the terms of the order as long as it remains in effect.19
Consent orders are an important aspect of the Commission’s enforcement effort because they promote the
public interest through prompt compliance and the timely and efficient disposition of proceedings.  
Where, as here, a party to a consent order apparently engages in willful and repeated violations of the 
terms of the order, it undermines public confidence in the consent order process and the ability of consent 
orders to serve the public interest.  As such, violations of a consent order represent a serious breach of 
the Commission’s rules that must be deterred.  
10. The Kintzel brothers and the Commission jointly filed a request for adoption of the 2004 
Consent Decree on February 17, 2004.20 In executing the agreement and jointly filing for adoption, the 
Kintzel brothers made certain representations and promises to the Commission about their commitments 
to comply with the Commission’s rules and various provisions of the Act.  The Enforcement Bureau 
relied on those representations and promises in good faith in agreeing to jointly seek termination of the 
BOI hearing proceeding.  As discussed below, the information now before the Commission indicates that 
the Kintzel brothers reneged on their promises to the Commission, and deliberately engaged in conduct 
that was inconsistent with the terms of the Consent Decree to which they were signatories.  
11. The Consent Decree, at paragraph 14(d), required the Kintzel brothers to obtain 
authorization from either the Commission or the applicable state public utility commission prior to 
  
18 See 47 U.S.C. §416(c).
19 Id.
20 See Approving Order, 19 FCC Rcd 2916 (2004) (noting “[t]his is a ruling on Joint Request for Adoption of 
Consent Decree and Termination of Proceeding, filed on February 17, 2004, by the Enforcement Bureau 
(“Bureau”) and Business Options, Inc. (“BOI”).”
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
5
discontinuing long distance telephone service to customers.21 In addition, and independent of the 
Consent Decree, Section 63.71 of the Commission’s rules requires any domestic carrier seeking to reduce 
or impair service to comply with a series of procedures, including furnishing notice to all affected 
customers, providing a copy of its application to the state public service commission and the Governor of 
each state, and furnishing an application to the Commission confirming notification to the foregoing.22  
The purpose of Section 63.71, upon which paragraph 14(d) of the Consent Decree was predicated, is to 
prevent the interruption of service to communities without prior notice, and to allow affected customers 
to make alternate arrangements for continued service when a carrier seeks to discontinue service.  The 
information before the Commission indicates that the Kintzel brothers failed to notify either the 
Commission or the appropriate state officials and regulatory bodies prior to terminating service to 
customers in 43 states in November of 2006.  Such failure is manifestly inconsistent with the terms of the 
Consent Decree and Section 63.71 of the Commission’s rules.  Accordingly, issues will be specified to 
determine whether the Kintzel brothers discontinued service to the public in willful and repeated 
violation of the terms of the Consent Decree and in willful and repeated violation of Section 63.71 of the 
Commission’s rules. 
12. The Consent Decree, at paragraph 14(f), required the Kintzel brothers to make all federal 
universal service contributions by the due date specified in each invoice sent by the USAC.23  The 
requirement to pay universal service contributions is also codified in Section 54.706 of the Commission’s 
rules and is critical to maintaining the vitality of the universal service fund and guaranteeing the 
continued availability of funds.24 The information before the Commission indicates that one of the 
Kintzel brothers’ companies, Buzz, apparently failed to make 22 required universal service contributions.
The Kintzel brothers’ apparent utter disregard for their universal service obligations is flatly inconsistent 
with their commitments under the terms of the Consent Decree and contrary to the requirements set forth 
in Section 54.706 of the Commission’s rules.  Accordingly, an issue will be specified to determine 
whether the Kintzel brothers failed to make required universal service payments in willful and repeated 
violation of the Consent Decree and of Section 54.706 of the Commission’s rules. 
13. The Consent Decree, at paragraph 14(g), required the Kintzel brothers to make all
required TRS contributions by the due date on each invoice received from NECA.25 The requirement that 
carriers providing interstate telecommunications services timely pay TRS contributions is codified in 
Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission’s rules.26 The information before the Commission 
indicates that the Kintzel brothers, doing business as Buzz, failed to pay annual TRS assessments for 
either 2005 or 2006.  NECA indicates that Buzz has an outstanding balance of $2,709.92. The failure to 
make timely TRS contributions to NECA over the course of two years is unquestionably inconsistent 
with the obligations of an interstate common carrier, and constitutes apparent willful and repeated 
violations of the Consent Decree and of Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission’s rules. 
  
21 Id. at ¶14(d).
22 See 47 C.F.R. §63.71.
23 See Consent Decree, at ¶14(f).
24 See 47 C.F.R. §54.706.  This section of the Commission’s rules unambiguously directs ``entities [providing] 
interstate telecommunications to the public . . . for a fee . . . contribute to the universal service support 
programs.”
25 See Consent Decree, at ¶14(g).
26 See 47 C.F.R. §64.604(c)(5)(iii).
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
6
Accordingly, an issue will be specified to determine whether the Kintzel brothers failed to make TRS 
payments in willful and repeated violation of the Consent Decree and Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the 
Commission’s rules.
14. The Consent Decree, at paragraph 15, required the Kintzel brothers to remit to the 
Commission a voluntary contribution in the total amount of $510,000, to be paid in regularly scheduled 
installments for 48 consecutive months.27 The information before the Commission indicates, however, 
that the Kintzel brothers only made timely payments from May 2004 through May 2005 before missing 
their first scheduled payment in June 2005.  Thereafter, they apparently made one payment in July 2005
and missed their next ten scheduled payments before making another payment in May 2006.  No further 
payments have been received.  As of the date of this Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for 
Hearing, at least $224,700 is apparently past due.  Accordingly, an issue will be specified to determine 
whether the Kintzel brothers failed to make timely payments to the Commission in willful and repeated 
violation of the terms of the Consent Decree to which they were signatories.
B. Other Apparent Violations
15. Section 218 of the Act 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.”28 Section 403 of the Act also grants the Commission the power to 
direct responses to inquiries in order to execute its functions.29 The Commission has previously held that 
the failure to respond to an LOI from the Commission may result in a forfeiture.30 The Enforcement 
Bureau sent an LOI to the Kintzel brothers on December 20, 2006, and a follow-up request for 
information on January 19, 2007.  Kurtis Kintzel provided only a partial response to the LOI, and only a 
partial response to the follow-up request.  Specifically, Kintzel failed to provide verification tapes 
associated with ten slamming complaints received by the Commission, failed to provide a list of 
complaints received by Buzz from May of 2006 to the date of the LOI, and failed to provide verification 
tapes associated with such complaints.  The apparent failure of the Kintzel brothers to provide all of the 
information requested by the Enforcement Bureau in a timely and comprehensive manner prevented the 
Commission staff from carrying out its statutory obligations.  Accordingly, an issue will be specified to 
determine whether the Kintzel brothers failed to respond fully and completely to staff inquiries for 
information, in willful and/or repeated violation of Sections 218 and 403 of the Act. 
16. Section 258 of the Act, as amended, prohibits telecommunications carriers from 
executing a change in a subscriber’s selection of a provider of telephone exchange or telephone toll 
service except in accordance with Commission rules.31 Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules 
requires telecommunications carriers to obtain authorization from a subscriber prior to executing a 
change in the subscriber’s telephone exchange or telephone toll service, and to verify the subscriber’s 
authorization in accordance with the procedures specified therein.32 The Enforcement Bureau requested 
  
27 Consent Decree, at ¶15.
28 See 47 U.S.C. §218.
29 See 47 U.S.C. §403.  See also Unicom Communications, LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 4361, 4364 (2006).
30 See id. See also International Telecom Exchange, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6232 (2006) and Universal 
Telecommunications, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6579 (2006).
31 See 47 U.S.C. §258(a).
32 See 47 C.F.R. §64.1120.
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
7
that the Kintzel brothers provide information and verification tapes associated with at least ten apparent 
slamming complaints received by the Commission in the last calendar quarter of 2006.  The Kintzel 
brothers failed to provide the information requested by the LOI and the follow-up communication.  The 
Commission continues to receive complaints alleging that Buzz executed a change to a subscriber’s 
telephone exchange or telephone toll service without authorization in apparent violation of Section 258 
of the Act, as amended, and Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules.  The information before the 
Commission indicates that the Kintzel brothers have apparently violated Section 258 of the Act, as 
amended, and Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules on numerous occasions.  Accordingly, an issue 
will be specified to determine whether the Kintzel brothers have executed changes in a subscriber’s 
selection of a provider of telephone exchange or telephone toll service, in willful and repeated violation 
of Section 258 of the Act, as amended, and Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules.      
C. Sanctions
17. Under Section 1.95 of the Commission’s rules, the violation of a consent order subjects 
the consenting party to the entire range of sanctions that “could have been imposed” in the proceeding 
that led to the consent order if the issues in that proceeding had been decided against the consenting 
party, as well as additional sanctions for the consent violations.33 The Commission carries the burden to 
demonstrate that the “consent order has been violated in some, but not all respects.”34  As discussed 
above, issues will be specified herein to determine whether multiple provisions of the 2004 Consent 
Decree were violated.  If the Presiding Judge concludes on the basis of evidence adduced pursuant to 
those issues that the subject Consent Decree was in fact violated, it shall also be determined, as discussed 
below and pursuant to Section 1.95 of our rules, whether the entire, or some lesser range, of sanctions 
that could have been imposed from the earlier proceeding had all the issues been decided adversely to 
BOI should be imposed against the Kintzel brothers in the instant proceeding.  
18. The BOI 2003 Show Cause Order, at paragraph 39, specified a potential forfeiture:
in the amount of no more than: (a) $80,000 for each unauthorized conversion of 
complainants' long distance service in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 258 and 47 C.F.R. § 
64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement 
in violation of a Commission directive and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195; and (c) $120,000 for the 
unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community in violation of 47 U.S.C. §214 
and 47 C.F.R. §§63.71 and 63.505.
The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI: (a) changed the long distance provider 
of a subscriber without authorization 16 times; (b) failed to file an FCC Form 499-A; and (c) 
discontinued service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated violation of Section 214 of 
the Act and Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules.35  In addition, the issues that were 
added in the earlier proceeding carried additional potential sanctions, including $115,533.52 for failure to 
make timely universal service contributions; $10,000 for each failure to timely file Telecommunications 
Reporting Worksheets (“Worksheets”); and $10,000 for each failure to make timely TRS contributions.  
The Presiding Judge in the earlier proceeding determined that BOI (a) failed to make required universal 
  
33 47 C.F.R. §1.95.
34 Id.
35 See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-54, released December 9, 2003.
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
8
service contributions in violation of Section 254(d) of the Act and Section 54.706 of the Commission's 
rules; (b) failed to make required contributions to the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund in 
violation of Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules; and (c) failed to file Telecom 
ReportingWorksheets in violation of Sections 54.711, 54.713 and 64.604(c)(iii)(B) of the Commission's 
rules.36  Consequently, with respect to the range of sanctions relating to violations of the Consent Decree, 
it shall be determined whether the Kintzel brothers are subject to a forfeiture in an amount not to exceed 
$1,538,533.52.
19. In addition to issues relating to compliance with the Consent Decree, issues are also 
specified below to determine whether the Kintzel brothers engaged in conduct that may have violated 
Sections 54.706, 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A), and 63.71 of the Commission’s rules, and Section 218 of the Act.  
Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act states that violations of each of these provisions carry a potential 
forfeiture of $130,000 per violation or each day of a continuing violation except that the amount assessed 
for any continuing violation shall not exceed $1,325,000 for any single act or failure to act.37 The
information before the Commission indicates that the Kintzel brothers, doing business as Buzz, 
apparently failed to make 22 consecutive universal service contributions, failed to make two consecutive 
annual TRS contributions, and discontinued service without Commission authorization.  The apparent 
universal and TRS contribution violations are subject to maximum forfeitures of $29,150,000 and 
$2,650,000 respectively under the Commission’s rules.  The Kintzel brothers also discontinued service 
without Commission authorization in violation of Sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission’s rules 
and failed to respond to a Commission inquiry in violation of Sections 218 and 403 of the Act.  Each of 
these apparent violations is subject to a maximum forfeiture of $130,000.  Consequently, with respect to 
the range of sanctions relating to these apparent violations of the various sections of the Commission’s 
rules and of the Act, it shall also be determined whether the Kintzel brothers are subject to a forfeiture in 
an amount not to exceed $32,060,000.
20. Issues are specified below to determine whether the Kintzel brothers engaged in conduct 
that violates paragraph 15 of the Consent Order.  Each violation of this paragraph carries a potential 
forfeiture of $130,000 per violation or each day of a continuing violation except that the amount assessed 
for any continuing violation shall not exceed $1,325,000 for any single act or failure to act.  The Kintzel 
brothers apparently failed to remit 12 consecutive monthly voluntary contributions required under 
paragraph 15.  These apparent violations each represent a separate continuing violation, and it therefore 
shall be determined whether the Kintzel brothers are subject to a forfeiture in an amount not to exceed 
$15,900,000.
21. Issues are specified below to determine whether the Kintzel brothers, doing business as 
Buzz, engaged in conduct that may have violated Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the 
Commission’s rules.  Each complaint alleging an unauthorized change to the telephone exchange or 
telephone toll service of a subscriber, in violation of the foregoing that is determined to be a violation is 
subject to a maximum forfeiture of $130,000.  
22. In sum, the Kintzel brothers, through their various businesses, appear to have engaged in 
  
36 See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-58, released December 24, 2003.
37 See 47 C.F.R. §1.80 (b)(2).  The Kintzel brothers have engaged in a pattern of misconduct that spans more than 
five years and now multiple enforcement proceedings.  Their conduct represents a systemic abrogation of their 
obligations as a common carrier and demonstrates a blatant disregard for Commission Rules.  We therefore believe 
it is appropriate to consider assessing the statutory maximum for each of these recent violations.
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
9
a pervasive pattern of misconduct that includes slamming, failure to make universal service and TRS 
contributions, failure to seek appropriate authorizations from the Commission, and, most recently, failure 
to honor their obligations under the Consent Decree.  The extensive list of apparent violations, and the 
fact that the misconduct appears to have continued after prior enforcement proceedings were resolved 
through a negotiated Consent Decree, plainly suggest that the Kintzel brothers and the entities they 
control have little regard for the Commission’s rules and the compliance responsibilities of a common 
carrier.  Such egregious behavior is patently inconsistent with the obligations of a Commission regulatee 
and calls into question whether the Kintzel brothers are qualified to be and remain interstate common 
carriers.  Consequently, appropriate issues are specified below to determine whether the blanket authority 
conferred upon the Kintzel brothers, as defined herein, to provide common carrier services should be 
revoked and, further, whether they should be required in the future to refrain from providing such 
services without prior written application to and consent from the Commission.  
D.  Procedural Matter
23. We note that Section 1.95 of the Commission’s rules provides that “violation of the 
consent order and the sanctions to be imposed shall be the only issues considered in a proceeding 
concerning such an alleged violation.”38  This language contemplates that a proceeding initiated to 
consider an entity’s violation of a consent order will ordinarily be limited to alleged violations of the 
order.  Where, in addition to possible consent order violations, there are also alleged violations of 
Commission rules that arise out of the same misconduct, relate closely to the alleged violations of a 
consent order, and collectively raise very serious questions about the fundamental qualifications of the 
entities in question, it is administratively efficient and would serve the public interest to consider such 
issues in a consolidated proceeding.  We therefore waive Section 1.95 to the extent that it would 
otherwise restrict the scope of this proceeding to allow a comprehensive inquiry into all of the apparent 
violations referenced above committed by the Kintzel brothers.  
V.     ORDERING CLAUSES
24. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 214 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§154(i) and 214, that Buzz Telecom Corporation, 
Business Options, Inc., US Bell Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals 
Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan Kintzel ARE DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE why the operating 
authority bestowed on them pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
should not be REVOKED, in a consolidated proceeding before an administrative law judge, at a time and 
place to be specified in a subsequent order, upon the following issues:
(a) to determine whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell 
Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel
and/or Keanan Kintzel willfully and/or repeatedly violated Paragraph 14(d) of the Consent 
Decree in EB Docket No. 03-85 by discontinuing service in one or more states without first 
notifying either the Commission or the appropriate state regulatory authority;
(b)  to determine whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell 
Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel
and/or Keanan Kintzel willfully and/or repeatedly violated Paragraph 14(f) of the Consent 
  
38 47 C.F.R. §1.95.
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
10
Decree in EB Docket No. 03-85 by failing to make required universal service contributions 
by the date indicated on invoices from USAC;
(c)  to determine whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell 
Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel
and/or Keanan Kintzel willfully and/or repeatedly violated Paragraph 14(g) of the Consent 
Decree in EB Docket No. 03-85 by failing to make required TRS contributions by the date 
indicated on invoices received from NECA;
(d) to determine whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell 
Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel
and/or Keanan Kintzel willfully and/or repeatedly violated Paragraph 15 of the Consent 
Decree in EB Docket No. 03-85 by failing to make required voluntary contributions to the 
Commission in a timely manner;
(e) to determine whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell 
Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel
and/or Keanan Kintzel willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 63.71 of the 
Commission’s rules by discontinuing service in one or more states without first notifying 
either the Commission or the appropriate state regulatory authority;
(f)  to determine whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell 
Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel
and/or Keanan Kintzel willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 54.706 of the 
Commission’s rules by failing to make required universal service contributions by the date 
indicated on invoices from USAC;
(g)  to determine whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell 
Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel
and/or Keanan Kintzel willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of 
the Commission’s rules by failing to make required TRS contributions by the date indicated 
on invoices received from NECA;
(h) to determine whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell 
Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel
and/or Keanan Kintzel willfully and/or repeatedly violated Sections 218 and/or 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to respond fully, completely, and in a 
timely manner to one or more Commission inquiries;
(i) to determine whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell 
Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel
and/or Keanan Kintzel willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 258 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules 
by changing a subscriber’s provider of telephone exchange or telephone toll service without 
authorization and/or without following the verification procedure’s outlined in Section 
64.1120 of the Commission’s rules;  
(j)  to determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether 
the authority conferred by Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
upon Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell Corporation, Link 
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
11
Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan Kintzel
to provide interstate common carrier services should be revoked; 
(k) to determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether
Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell Corporation, Link 
Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan Kintzel
should be ordered to henceforth cease, desist and otherwise refrain from providing 
interstate common carrier services of any kind without prior written application to and 
consent from the Commission.  
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.91(c) of the Commission’s rules, that, 
to avail themselves of the opportunity to be heard, Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US 
Bell Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan 
Kintzel, SHALL FILE with the Commission within 20 calendar days of the mailing of this Order to Show 
Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing a WRITTEN APPEARANCE stating that they will, 
individually and/or by legal representative, appear on the date fixed for hearing and present evidence on the 
issues specified herein.
26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, SHALL BE MADE a 
party to this proceeding without the need to file a notice of appearance.
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.92(c) of the Commission’s rules, that 
if Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell Corporation, Link Technologies, 
AVATAR, and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan Kintzel fail to timely file written 
appearances within the 20-day period referenced above, or have not filed a petition to accept, for good 
cause shown, a written appearance beyond the expiration of the 20-day period, their right to a hearing 
shall be deemed by the Presiding Administrative Law Judge to be waived,39 and the Presiding 
Administrative Law Judge shall, at the earliest practicable date, issue an order terminating the hearing 
proceeding and certifying the case to the Commission.40
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 312(d) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended,41 and Section 1.91(d) of the Commission’s rules,42 that the burden of proceeding with 
the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to all of the issues specified above 
SHALL BE on the Chief, Enforcement Bureau.
29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this document constitutes a NOTICE OF 
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING pursuant to Section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended.43
30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that irrespective of whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, 
Business Options, Inc., US Bell Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals
  
39 See 47 C.F.R. §1.92(a).
40 See 47 C.F.R. §1.92(c).
41 See 47 U.S.C. §312(d).
42 See 47 C.F.R. §1.91(d).
43 See 47 U.S.C. §503(b)(3)(A).
Federal Communications Commission   FCC 07-165
12
Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan Kintzel are determined to be qualified to operate pursuant to Section 214 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, it shall be determined, pursuant to Section 503 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, whether an ORDER FOR FORFEITURE shall be issued 
against them, individually and/or collectively, for willful and/or repeated violations of the Consent Decree 
in EB Docket No. 03-85, specified as issues (a)-(c) above, in an amount not to exceed $1,538,533.52.
31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that irrespective of whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, 
Business Options, Inc., US Bell Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals 
Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan Kintzel are determined to be qualified to operate pursuant to Section 214 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, it shall be determined, pursuant to Section 503 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, whether an ORDER FOR FORFEITURE shall be issued against 
them, individually and/or collectively, for willful and/or repeated violations of the Commission’s rules, 
and/or the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, specified as issues (d)-(g) above, in an amount not to 
exceed $32,060,000.
32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that irrespective of whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, 
Business Options, Inc., US Bell Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals 
Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan Kintzel are determined to be qualified to operate pursuant to Section 214 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, it shall be determined, pursuant to Section 503 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, whether an ORDER FOR FORFEITURE shall be issued against 
them, individually and/or collectively, for willful and/or repeated violations of the Commission’s rules, 
and/or the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, specified as issue (h) above, in an amount not to 
exceed $130,000 for each such violation.
33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that irrespective of whether Buzz Telecom Corporation, 
Business Options, Inc., US Bell Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, and/or their principals 
Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan Kintzel are determined to be qualified to operate pursuant to Section 214 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, it shall be determined, pursuant to Section 503 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, whether an ORDER FOR FORFEITURE shall be issued against 
them, individually and/or collectively, for willful and/or repeated violations of the Commission’s rules, 
and/or the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, specified as issue (i) above, in an amount not to 
exceed $15,900,000.
34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Section 1.95 of the Commission’s rules IS WAIVED to 
allow consideration of all of the issues specified above in one consolidated hearing proceeding.  
35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to 
Buzz Telecom Corporation, Business Options, Inc., US Bell Corporation, Link Technologies, AVATAR, 
and/or their principals Kurtis J. Kintzel and/or Keanan Kintzel.
36.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, or a 
summary thereof, shall be published in the Federal Register.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary