Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
In the Matter of 
Horizon Telecom, Inc. 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
))))))))) 
File No. EB-07-TC-4006 
NAL/Acct. No. 200832170013 
FRN: 0009704925 
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE 
Adopted: February 29, 2008 Released: February 29, 2008 
By the Commission: 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”),1 we find that Horizon Telecom, 
Inc. (“Horizon” or “Company”) apparently willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended2 (“Communications Act” or “Act”), and sections 1.717, 
64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission’s rules.3 As discussed in more detail herein, Horizon has 
apparently willfully or repeatedly failed to respond on a timely basis to twenty-one (21) informal 
complaints served on it by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (“CGB”). In addition, it 
apparently changed the preferred carriers of one hundred twenty-five (125) consumers without proper 
authorization, a practice commonly known as “slamming.”4 Based upon our review of the facts and 
circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we propose a monetary forfeiture of $5,084,000 
against Horizon for the apparent violations described herein. 
2. Horizon’s apparent violations are discussed individually in detail below. However, we 
provide a brief background to the investigation. Horizon is a Las Vegas-based company that provides 
long distance calling services. The Commission has been monitoring Horizon’s activities due to the 
quantity and nature of informal complaints received by CGB and state public utility commissions and 
Attorneys General offices. The Enforcement Bureau (“EB”) sent Horizon a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) 
on June 28, 2007, directing the company to answer a number of inquiries regarding its business 
1 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1). The Commission has the authority under this section of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended to assess a forfeiture against any person who has “willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any of 
the provisions of this Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under this Act ….” 
2 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 258. 
3 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130. 
4 See para 7, infra.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
2 
practices and compliance with various Commission rules. 5 Horizon provided a partial response on July 
27, 2007 (“response”) 6 and supplemented its response on September 19, 2007 (“supplemental 
response”).7 
II. DISCUSSION 
A. Failure to Respond to Commission Directive 
1. Background 
3. CGB’s informal complaint process provides an avenue for consumers to have their 
complaints and inquiries addressed through informal mediation and resolution by CGB with the carrier. 
CGB addresses informal complaints against carriers by serving the complaint on the carrier and 
requiring from the carrier within thirty days a written response discussing the satisfaction of the 
complaint or the carrier’s refusal or inability to satisfy the complaint. Specifically, pursuant to section 
1.717: 
The Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for 
investigation. The carrier will, within such time as may be prescribed, advise the 
Commission in writing, with a copy to the complainant, of its satisfaction of the 
complaint or its refusal or inability to do so. Where there are clear indications from the 
carrier’s report or from other communications with the parties that the complaint has 
been satisfied the Commission may in its discretion, consider a complaint proceeding to 
be closed, without response to the complainant. In all other cases, the Commission will 
contact the complainant regarding its review and disposition of the matters raised. If the 
complainant is not satisfied by the carrier’s response and the Commission’s disposition, it 
may file a formal complaint in accordance with §1.721 of this part.8 
4. Pursuant to this process, CGB served on Horizon twenty-one (21) informal complaints.9 
Further, the Commission on March 2, 2007, reminded carriers of the importance of responding to 
5 Letter from Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Cheyenne Devine, Customer Service Manager, Horizon Telecom, 
Inc. (June 28, 2007) (“LOI”). 
6 Letter from Andrew Lustigman, The Lustigman Firm, P.C., Counsel to Horizon Telecom, Inc., to Marcy Greene, 
Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission (July 27, 2007) (“response”). 
7 Letter from Andrew Lustigman, The Lustigman Firm, P.C., Counsel to Horizon Telecom, Inc., to Marcy Greene, 
Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission (September 19, 2007) (“supplemental response”) 
8 47 C.F.R. §1.717. 
9 See IC#s 07-S0279092 (sent to Horizon 7/6/07, no response received), 07-S0279182 (sent to Horizon 7/26/07, no 
response received), 07-S0279425 (sent to Horizon 7/13/07, no response received), 07-S001633 (sent to Horizon 
6/14/07, no response received), 07-S0277776 (sent to Horizon 6/15/07, no response received), 07-S0278305 (sent to 
Horizon 6/19/07, no response received), 07-S0279037 (sent to Horizon 7/10/07, no response received), 07- 
S0279094 (sent to Horizon 7/10/07, no response received), 07-S001697 (sent to Horizon 7/13/07, no response 
received), 07-S0279981 (sent to Horizon 7/20/07, no response received), 07-S0266292 (sent to Horizon 2/21/07, no 
response received), 07-S001551 (sent to Horizon 4/11/07, no response received), 07-S001530 (sent to Horizon 
3/9/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0267711 (sent to Horizon 3/6/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0270717 
(sent to Horizon 3/30/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0270921 (sent to Horizon 3/29/07, response received 
6/29/07), 07-S001517 (sent to Horizon 2/2/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0263454 (sent to Horizon 2/2/07, 
response received 6/29/07), 07-S0257121 (sent to Horizon 2/8/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0262341 (sent to 
Horizon 1/26/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0266294 (sent to Horizon 2/21/07, response received 6/11/07).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
3 
informal complaints, and the seriousness of the penalties for failure to do so.10 Horizon has failed to 
respond in a timely manner to these twenty-one informal complaints. To date, Horizon has not 
responded to twelve of the complaints,11and responded at least two months late to the remaining nine 
complaints.12 
2. Discussion 
5. Sections 4(i), 4(j), 218, and 403 of the Act afford the Commission broad authority to 
investigate the entities it regulates.13 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,” and 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.”14 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.”15 Section 403 of 
the Act grants the Commission “full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own 
motion . . . relating to the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act.”16 Finally, section 1.717 of 
our rules requires the Commission to forward informal complaints to the appropriate carriers and 
requires a written response from the carrier within thirty days.17 
6. We find that Horizon apparently violated section 1.717 of the Commission’s rules by 
failing to timely respond to the above-referenced twenty-one informal complaints served by CGB. The 
Commission on March 2, 2007, expressly reminded carriers of their regulatory obligations to respond to 
10 Public Notice, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reminds Common Carriers of Their Obligation to 
Timely Respond to Informal Complaints, DA 07-989 (March 2, 2007). 
11 See IC#s 07-S0279092 (sent to Horizon 7/6/07, no response received), 07-S0279182 (sent to Horizon 7/26/07, no 
response received), 07-S0279425 (sent to Horizon 7/13/07, no response received), 07-S001633 (sent to Horizon 
6/14/07, no response received), 07-S0277776 (sent to Horizon 6/15/07, no response received), 07-S0278305 (sent to 
Horizon 6/19/07, no response received), 07-S0279037 (sent to Horizon 7/10/07, no response received), 07- 
S0279094 (sent to Horizon 7/10/07, no response received), 07-S001697 (sent to Horizon 7/13/07, no response 
received), 07-S0279981 (sent to Horizon 7/20/07, no response received), 07-S0266292 (sent to Horizon 2/21/07, no 
response received), 07-S001551 (sent to Horizon 4/11/07, no response received). 
12 See IC#s 07-S001530 (sent to Horizon 3/9/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0267711 (sent to Horizon 3/6/07, 
response received 6/29/07), 07-S0270717 (sent to Horizon 3/30/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0270921 (sent 
to Horizon 3/29/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S001517 (sent to Horizon 2/2/07, response received 6/29/07), 
07-S0263454 (sent to Horizon 2/2/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0257121 (sent to Horizon 2/8/07, response 
received 6/29/07), 07-S0262341 (sent to Horizon 1/26/07, response received 6/29/07), 07-S0266294 (sent to 
Horizon 2/21/07, response received 6/11/07). We note that, although CGB has served other complaints on Horizon 
that the Company has not responded to in a timely fashion, we exercise our discretion not to assess a forfeiture for 
those late-filed responses because we only recently made clear our intent to enforce more strictly our response time 
frame as set forth by section 1.717 of the Commission’s rules, and because those late-filed responses were not filed 
as far beyond the filing time frame as those for which we do assess a forfeiture. We caution Horizon and other 
carriers that, as we made clear in our March 2, 2007 Public Notice, we expect timely responses to informal 
complaints, and we will take a hard look at late-filed responses in subsequent actions. 
13 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j), 218, & 403. 
14 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), (j). 
15 47 U.S.C. § 218. 
16 47 U.S.C. § 403; see also 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), (j). 
17 47 C.F.R. §1.717. 

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
4 
informal complaints in a timely fashion, and the seriousness of the penalties for failure to do so.18 
Nevertheless, Horizon has not timely responded to the informal complaints referenced herein. Of the 
twenty-one complaints at issue, Horizon failed to respond to twelve. Moreover, Horizon’s responses to 
the nine remaining complaints were filed not only beyond thirty days of service, the time frame in 
which Horizon was given to respond in all of these informal responses, but also beyond that March 
2007 Public Notice. We conclude that Horizon apparently willfully or repeatedly violated a 
Commission rule by failing to timely provide a written response in response to twenty-one informal 
complaints. Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture is warranted against Horizon for this apparent willful or 
repeated violation. 
B. Slamming Violations 
1. Background 
7. Section 258 of the Act prohibits the practice of “slamming,” the submission or execution of 
an unauthorized change in a subscriber’s selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or 
telephone toll service (“preferred carrier”).19 Section 258 of the Act makes it unlawful for any 
telecommunications carrier to “submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of 
telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such procedures as the 
Commission shall prescribe.”20 In December 1998, the Commission released the Section 258 Order in 
which it adopted rules to implement Section 258.21 In the Section 258 Order, the Commission adopted 
aggressive rules designed to take the profit out of slamming, broadened the scope of the slamming rules 
to encompass all carriers, and modified its existing requirements for the authorization and verification 
of preferred carrier changes. 
8. The rules require, among other things, that a carrier receive individual subscriber consent 
before a carrier change may occur.22 Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules prescribes that no 
carrier “shall submit a change on the behalf of a subscriber . . . prior to obtaining: (i) Authorization 
from the subscriber, and (ii) Verification of that authorization in accordance with the procedures 
18 Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reminds Common Carriers of Their Obligation to Timely Respond to 
Informal Complaints, Public Notice, DA 07-989 (March 2, 2007). 
19 47 U.S.C. § 258(a). 
20 47 U.S.C. § 258. 
21 47 U.S.C. § 258(a); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996); Implementation 
of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules 
Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Second Report 
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (Section 258 Order), stayed in 
part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999); First Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 
8158 (2000); stay lifted, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2000); Third Report and Order 
and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996 (2000), Errata, DA No. 00-2163 (rel. Sept. 25, 2000), 
Erratum, DA No. 00-2192 (rel. Oct. 4, 2000), Order, FCC 01-67 (rel. Feb. 22, 2001); Third Order on 
Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 5099 (2003); Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd 10997 (2003). Prior to the adoption of Section 258, the Commission had taken various steps to address the 
slamming problem. See, e.g., Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance 
Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995), stayed in part, 11 FCC Rcd 856 
(1995); Policies and Rules Concerning Changing Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 91-64, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 
(1992), reconsideration denied, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs, 
CC Docket No. 83-1145, Phase I, 101 F.C.C.2d 911, 101 F.C.C.2d 935, reconsideration denied, 102 F.C.C.2d 503 
(1985). 
22 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
5 
prescribed in this section.”23 Specifically, a carrier must: (1) obtain the subscriber's written or 
electronically signed authorization in a format that meets the requirements of section 64.1130; (2) 
obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of 
confirming orders electronically; or (3) utilize an independent third party to verify the subscriber's 
order.24 
9. Of particular relevance here is section 64.1130 which details the requirements for the letter 
of agency (“LOA”) form and content for written or electronically signed authorizations.25 Section 
64.1130(b) requires that the LOA “be a separate document (or an easily separable document) or located 
on a separate screen or webpage containing only the authorizing language described in paragraph (e) of 
[section 64.1130] having the sole purpose of authorizing a telecommunications carrier to initiate a 
preferred carrier change. The letter of agency must be signed and dated by the subscriber to the 
telephone line(s) requesting the preferred carrier change.”26 The rule further mandates that the LOA 
“shall not be combined on the same document, screen, or webpage with inducements of any kind.”27 
The rule details the basic requirements for the LOA, including the size and readability of type, and 
certain minimum content requirements.28 
a. Discussion 
10. Each of the one hundred twenty-five (125) consumers who filed complaints that form the 
basis of this NAL maintain that they did not authorize Horizon to change their preferred carriers, but 
that Horizon nevertheless changed their preferred carriers to Horizon.29 Horizon states that 
authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed.30 We find 
that Horizon has failed to produce a preponderance of evidence that the complainants authorized a 
carrier change.31 Therefore, we find that Horizon’s actions apparently resulted in an unauthorized 
change in each complainant’s telecommunications service provider. 
11. In its response to the LOI, Horizon states that it markets through an “Internet marketing 
campaign” and telemarketing, and that it terminated both marketing programs prior to its receipt of the 
LOI.32 The Company submitted copies of its Internet LOA, and its telemarketing script and verification 
23 Id. § 64.1120(a)(1). 
24 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c). For those carriers that use an independent third party for verification, our rules 
require that the verification method confirm at least six things: the identity of the subscriber; confirmation that the 
person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change; confirmation that the person on the call wants to make 
the change; the names of the carriers affected by the change; the telephone numbers to be switched; and the types of 
service involved. Our rules also require that carriers keep audio records of the verification for a minimum of two 
years. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120. Finally, the Commission's rules require that when a carrier "is selling more than one 
type of telecommunications service … that carrier must obtain separate authorization from the subscriber for each 
service sold … Each authorization must be verified separately from any other authorizations obtained in the same 
solicitation.” 47 C.F.R. § 21.1120(b). 
25 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130. 
26 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(b). 
27 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(c). 
28 See 47 C.F.R. §64.1130(e)(1) – (4). 
29 See Appendix I. 
30 See response at 3,7; supplemental response at 2. 
31 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d). 
32 See response at 1- 2.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
6 
script. We have reviewed the LOA submitted by Horizon, and find that Horizon’s LOA contains an 
inducement in apparent violation of our rules,33 despite Horizon’s claim that its LOA “ensures that 
customers are properly solicited…the Letter of Authorization contains no marketing materials.”34 In 
particular, every LOA provided by Horizon contains not only acceptable authorizing language and 
disclosures, but also the following inducement: “[a]nd as an added BONUS, you will receive 2 FREE 
Roundtrip Airline Tickets Certificate from Executive Tour and Travel!” (emphasis in original).35 As 
noted above, our rules specifically prohibit LOAs from being combined with any inducements on the 
same “document, screen, or webpage.”36 Further, the LOA appears to lack a means or location for 
consumers to provide their electronic signature, as required by our rules.37 Accordingly, any preferred 
carrier change submitted by Horizon pursuant to the LOA it provided in response to the LOI apparently 
violates our rules on its face and thus constitutes a slam. We conclude that Horizon apparently willfully 
or repeatedly violated a Commission rule by submitting carrier change orders without proper 
authorization in accordance with our rules and section 258 of the Act of every consumer listed in 
Appendix I. Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture is warranted against Horizon for this apparent willful 
or repeated violation. 
III. FORFEITURE AMOUNT 
12. Under section 503(b)(1) 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.38 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.39 The legislative history to section 312(f)(1) of the 
Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act,40 and the 
Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 503(b) context.41 The Commission also may 
assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.42 “Repeated” means that the 
act was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day.43 To impose such a 
33 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(c). 
34 See supplemental response at 2. 
35 The LOA also includes the following language: “Horizon Telecom, Inc. is not owned or affiliated with Executive 
Tour and Travel, who is solely responsible for the fulfillment of the 2 free roundtrip airline tickets…TRAVELER IS 
ENTITLED TO TWO COMPLIMENTARY ROUND TRIP AIRLINE TICKETS, WHEN STAYING AT ONE OF 
THE PARTIPATING HOTELS OR CONDOS FOR A MINIMUM NUMBER OF NIGHTS AND PAYING 
STANDARD RATES. TRAVELER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HOTEL AND AIR DEPARTURE TAXES. AIR, 
HOTEL, AND CONDO RESERVATIONS MUST BE MADE THROUGH FLY FREE. FOR COMPLETE 
INFORMATION PLEASE REFER TO THE VACATION GUIDE IN YOU [sic] TRAVEL PACKET OR VISIT 
WWW.FLYFREEAMERICA.COM/IIG.” 
36 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(c). 
37 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(b). 
38 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1). 
39 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). 
40 H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). 
41 See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 
FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) (“Southern California Broadcasting Co.”). 
42 See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 
16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, ¶ 10 (2001) (“Callais Cablevision”) (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, inter alia, 
a cable television operator’s repeated signal leakage). 
43 Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5; Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
7 
forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against 
whom the notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture 
penalty should be imposed.44 The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission order or 
rule.45 
13. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to 
$130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of 
$1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act.46 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we 
consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including “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.”47 As provided by the Commission’s rules, the Commission and its staff retain the discretion to 
issue a higher or lower forfeiture, as permitted by statute.48 
14. Horizon will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to 
this NAL to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed.49 
A. Proposed Forfeiture for Horizon’s Failures to Respond 
15. Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules and the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy 
Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission 
communication.50 Horizon’s failure to timely respond to the twenty-one (21) informal complaints 
served by CGB warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each apparent violation, for a 
proposed forfeiture of eighty-four thousand dollar ($84,000). 
16. We also direct Horizon to respond to the remaining twelve informal complaints within 
thirty (30) days of the release of this order. Failure to do so may constitute an additional violation 
potentially subjecting Horizon to further penalties, including potentially higher monetary forfeitures, 
the revocation of operating authority, and the disqualification of any Horizon principal from the 
provision of any common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission.51 
44 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 
45 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002) (“SBC Forfeiture Order”). 
46 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s 
Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004). 
4747 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D). 
48 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4). 
49 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3). 
50 47 C.F.R. § 1.80; 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, 17114 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC 
Rcd 303 (1999). 
51 See CCN, Inc., et al, Order to Show Cause and Opportunity for Hearing, Order, 13 FCC Rcd 13599 (1998) 
(revoking carrier’s operating authority based on findings of repeated violations); see also, e.g., Business Options, 
Inc., Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 2916 (2003); NOS Communications, Inc., Affinity Network Incorporated and 
NOSVA Limited Partnership, Consent Decree, 2003 WL 22439710 (2003).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
8 
B. Proposed Forfeiture for Horizon’s Slamming Violations 
17. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines currently establish a standard forfeiture amount of 
$40,000 for violations of our rules and orders regarding unauthorized changes of preferred 
interexchange carriers.52 On several occasions, the Commission has sternly warned carriers that it 
would take swift and decisive enforcement action, including the imposition of substantial monetary 
forfeitures, against any carrier found to have engaged in slamming.53 We therefore find that Horizon is 
apparently liable for a forfeiture of $40,000 for each of the one hundred and twenty-five (125) 
unauthorized preferred carrier changes, for a total forfeiture of five million dollars ($5,000,000). 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 
18. We have determined that Horizon Telecom, Inc. has apparently willfully or repeatedly 
violated sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,54 and sections 1.717, 
64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission’s rules.55 Horizon has apparently willfully and repeatedly 
failed to timely respond to twenty-one (21) informal complaints served on it by CGB and submitted 
changes of the preferred carriers of one hundred twenty-five (125) consumers without their proper 
authorization, for a total propose forfeiture of $5,084,000 dollars. 
19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that 
Horizon Telecom. Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount 
of $5,084,000 for willful or repeated violations of sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201 
and 258, and sections 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130 of the Commission’s rules and orders as described 
above.56
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, 
within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Horizon Telecom, 
Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement 
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 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 –Telecommunications Consumers Division, and must include 
the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. 
21. 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 
(“GAAP”); 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. 
52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4). 
53 Brittan Communications International Corp., 15 FCC Rcd 4852 (2000); Amer-I-Net Services Corp., 15 FCC Rcd 
3118 (2000); All American Telephone Company, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 15040 (1998). 
54 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 222. 
55 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.717, 64.1120, and 64.1130. 
56 See 47 C.F.R.§§ 64.1120; see also 1998 Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1508; 1997 FNPRM & Order 
on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 10,674.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
9 
22. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid 
within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection 
pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act.57 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card through 
the Commission’s Revenue and Receivables Operations Group at (202) 418-1995, or by check or 
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment 
must include the 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-MOC2-
GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment[s] by wire transfer may be made to 
ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and account number 
27000001. 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. 
Questions, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov. 
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
SHALL BE SENT by certified mail to Horizon Telecom, Inc. at its address of record. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Marlene H. Dortch 
Secretary 
57 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
10 
Appendix I 
1. IC# 07-S0277769 Matthew Scott 573-635-5808 
2. IC# 07-S0277775 CJ Conte 304-598-7037 
3. IC# 07-S0277887 Matthew Browning 660-882-9217 
4. IC# 07-S0278231 Mary Weaver 816-525-4807 
5. IC# 07-S0278566 Barbara Henning 215-799-0224 
6. IC# 07-S0279040 James Major 610-670-1067 
7. IC# 07-S001622 Manuel Sedan 724-465-2959 
8. IC# 07-S001626 Claretha Young 314-524-7212 
9. IC# 07-S001656 Rick Baldwin 816-792-8623 
10. IC# 07-S001665 Tom Hand 816-525-6783 
11. IC# 07-S001690 Courtney Szpara 262-375-0731 
12. IC# 07-S001696 Todd Shaffer 816-795-7122 
13. IC# 07-S001703 Kevin Tresenriter 816-415-8638 
14. IC# 07-S001719 Michael Poindexter 816-537-7520 
15. IC# 07-S001735 Kathleen Flanders 573-873-8071 
16. IC# 07-S0277286 Nichola McCasland 573-431-8019 
17. IC# 07-S0277702 Paula Geisler 610-326-2646 
18. IC# 07-S0277729 David Hamilton 770-233-8364 
19. IC# 07-S0277886 Brenda Morton 417-588-2689 
20. IC# 07-S028232 Bruce Webster 816-228-9596 
21. IC# 07-S0278564 Rick Gillenwater 660-442-3234 
22. IC# 07-S0278569 Gary Moege 660-429-1618 
23. IC# 07-S0278618 Debbie Ehling 816-792-2019 
24. IC# 07-S0273144 Remi Freeman 215-321-2323 
25. IC# 07-S0273206 Kim Ramirez 573-364-4624 
26. IC# 07-S0273689 Kristin Rose 816-792-9775 
27. IC# 07-S0274239 Shannon Hartman 804-639-1094 
28. IC# 07-S0274323 Christine Potter 816-478-7465 
29. IC# 07-S0274687 Brian Whitley 816-537-5308 
30. IC# 07-S0274692 Eve Wells 816-781-5723 
31. IC# 07-S0274693 Robert Snyder 816-407-9023 
32. IC# 07-S0274695 Beth Hodge 717-417-1152 
33. IC# 07-S0276099 Setsuko Meyers 636-329-8298 
34. IC# 07-S0276105 Gary Boyd 816-373-3278 
35. IC# 07-S0276110 Connie Savage 816-524-3483 
36. IC# 07-S02762222 Pamela Fritzsche 314-428-5512 
37. IC# 07-S0276777 Darlene Owens-Howard 404-696-2996 
38. IC# 07-S0277042 Bryan Cessna 816-792-8473 
39. IC# 07-S0277104 Thomas Mullen 757-479-5178 
40. IC# 07-S0277106 Ron Schach 816-792-0860 
41. IC# 07-S0277107 Ralph and Sonni Cooper 505-466-6661 
42. IC# 07-S0277109 Charles Curtis 417-624-7451 
43. IC# 07-S0277285 Michael Blechle 573-243-0767 
44. IC# 07-S0277434 Heidi and Chris Hehner 314-427-0427 
45. IC# 07-S0277528 Anthony Warner 816-229-9565 
46. IC# 07-S0277534 Craig Nichols 573-659-8223 
47. IC# 07-S0277665 Terry Roberts 814-336-3373 
48. IC# 07-S0277669 Joshua Maddux 816-524-8754 
49. IC# 07-S0277671 Gwendolyn and Jeffrey Finley 417-624-7776 
50. IC# 07-S0277705 Thomas Stegeman 573-761-4886

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
11 
51. IC# 07-S001517 Nancy Khashan 770-271-7399 
52. IC# 07-S001530 John Monroe 724-783-7540 
53. IC# 07-S001566 Timothy Potinga 412-833-5817 
54. IC# 07-S001594 Edward Boles 816-246-4691 
55. IC# 07-S001577 Jessica and Joshua Layman 417-859-0023 
56. IC# 07-S001581 Duane Peter 816-792-1498 
57. IC# 07-S001582 Rebecca Smith 816-833-3243 
58. IC# 07-S001590 Jennifer Lay 816-224-8493 
59. IC# 07-S001593 Colleen Baber 434-977-8930 
60. IC# 07-S001571 Angeline Harkins 816-836-5351 
61. IC# 07-S001596 John Granger 816-224-0079 
62. IC# 07-S001607 Douglas Merrifield 417-889-6708 
63. IC# 07-S001609 Ilona Bukhshtaber 314-863-3665 
64. IC# 07-S001615 Teressa Hill 816-478-0468 
65. IC# 07-S001617 William Jordan 314-647-6009 
66. IC# 07-S001627 Diane Logsdon 816-537-5859 
67. IC# 07-S001628 Mary Corley 573-635-9405 
68. IC# 07-S001631 Megan and John Baldridge 660-886-9454 
69. IC# 07-S001667 Robert Glauz 816-524-5596 
70. IC# 07-S001675 Marilyn Kliethermes 573-636-5334 
71. IC# 07-S001683 Gary Ford 816-781-4079 
72. IC# 07-S001699 Brad Dye 816-229-1094 
73. IC# 07-S001702 Albert Monteil 816-795-0120 
74. IC# 07-S0261996 Andrea Kartchner 570-784-4737 
75. IC# 07-S0262333 Lloyd Wrisley 804-378-2849 
76. IC# 07-S0262341 Anne Widmer 314-846-9841 
77. IC# 07-S0263454 Natasha Ewing 770-469-7294 
78. IC# 07-S0265312 Jerome Blomberg 920-892-4941 
79. IC# 07-S0278620 Gloria Lee 314-428-1999 
80. IC# 07-S0279426 James Sumner 660-827-4598 
81. IC# 07-S0279432 Chet Boisen 816-532-6284 
82. IC# 07-S0279693 Alma Wright 770-860-9413 
83. IC# 07-S0279695 Doug Schell 816-836-0019 
84. IC# 07-S0279984 Carolyn Brewer 417-358-5316 
85. IC# 07-S0280087 Lillie Monford 770-457-9041 
86. IC# 07-S0280531 Jacqueline Whiston 816-734-8877 
87. IC# 07-S0280647 Glenda Moon 770-429-1808 
88. IC# 07-S0280650 Mary Struttmann 636-928-8467 
89. IC# 07-B0275549 Jessee Biretz 717-540-0899 
90. IC# 07-W13001949 Peter Nicastro 314-890-0672 
91. IC# 07-W12994120 Edwin Borja 816-833-3722 
92. IC# 07-W12982353 Stacey Price Brown 404-362-1211 
93. IC# 07-W12937616 Nelson Bencomo 201-854-8283 
94. IC# 07-W12896682 Saralyn Dicken 816-413-8251 
95. IC# 07-I0270733 Dennis McMullen 775-626-0360 
96. IC# 07-I0270252 John Conaty 804-214-9508 
97. IC# 07-W12860834 Hanan Shaban 732-239-2006 
98. IC# 07-I0266416 Barbara Post 610-384-1712 
99. IC# 07-W12713387 Brian Emig 717-854-6325 
100. IC# 07-F0265081 Beth Moury 412-672-4694 
101. IC# 07-W12701686 Yolanda Ackerman 440-953-8531 
102. IC# 07-W12654814 Christopher Nehoda 440-237-2203

Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-70 
12 
103. IC# 07-F0261477 Gale Meidinger 717-732-3709 
104. IC# 07-W12501443 Chris Charnas 407-862-2348 
105. IC# 07-R335462 Patricia Blanco 305-828-8930 
106. IC# 07-W13012330 Michael McMillan 573-243-0511 
107. IC# 07-W12681465 Joshua Porter 614-899-2336 
108. IC# 07-B0266043 Paula Daniels 321-632-9784 
109. IC# 07-W12946489 Linda Finnessey 314-837-6839 
110. IC# 07-W12904820 Tonia Budzina 440-988-5624 
111. IC# 07-I0271243 Brenda Fisher 703-237-3610 
112. IC# 07-I0266415 Heidi Tabor 609-884-3367 
113. IC# 07-W12706455 Kathleen Marsh 269-683-3945 
114. IC# 07-W12966032 Kevin Eckhoff 816-373-7012 
115. IC# 07-W12700756 Ralph Landis 610-264-1307 
116. IC# 07-W12691072 Margaret Calafut 570-282-6229 
117. IC# 07-W12680651 Carlos Frias 732-389-3579 
118. IC# 07-W13042260 Patricia Whitacre 417-532-4626 
119. IC# 07-W12979181 Angela Klumb 920-662-1646 
120. IC# 07-W12759157 Beverly Egan 410-252-6507 
121. IC# 07-R296949 Charles Underdown 757-853-3982 
122. IC# 07-W12659334 Max Ervin 413-736-3949 
123. IC# 07-W12658145 Mickey Hutton 540-778-1186 
124. IC# 07-W12729028 Gavril Costea 770-945-5576 
125. IC# 07-W12692054 Yi-Tsuei Sheu 410-744-2346