Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Telseven, LLC
Patrick B. Hines 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-08-IH-1386
NAL/Acct. No. 201232080024
FRN 0009834466
FRN 0021816459
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE 
Adopted:  June 14, 2012           Released:  June 14, 2012  
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find that Telseven, LLC 
(Telseven or Company) apparently violated: (1) Section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (Act), and Section 54.706 of the Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to 
contribute fully to the Universal Service Fund (USF);
1
(2) Section 54.711(a) of the Commission’s rules by 
willfully or repeatedly filing inaccurate FCC Forms 499-Q;
2
(3) Section 251(e)(2) of the Act and Section 
52.17 the Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to make full contributions to the 
administration of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP);
3
(4) Section 251(e)(2) of the Act and 
Section 52.32(a) of the Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to make full contributions to 
the administration of local number portability (LNP);
4
and (5) Sections 1.1154 and 1.1157(b)(1) of the 
Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to pay regulatory fees when due.
5
  Based on our 
review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter, and for the reasons discussed below, we 
find that Telseven is apparently liable for forfeiture penalties totaling one million, seven hundred fifty-
eight thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,758,465).
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Act codifies Congress’s historic commitment to promote universal service to ensure that 
consumers in all regions of the nation have access to affordable, quality telecommunications services.  In 
                                                          
1
47 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706.
2
47 C.F.R. § 54.711(a).  Form 499-Q is also known as the Quarterly Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet or 
Quarterly Worksheet.
3
47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 52.17.
4
47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 52.32(a).
5
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
particular, Section 254(d) of the Act requires, among other things, that “[e]very telecommunications 
carrier [providing] interstate telecommunications services . . . contribute, on an equitable and 
nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the 
Commission to preserve and advance universal service.”
6
  In implementing this Congressional mandate, 
the Commission directed all telecommunications carriers providing interstate telecommunications 
services and certain other providers of interstate telecommunications to register with the Commission, 
comply with annual and quarterly filing requirements, and contribute to the USF based on their interstate 
and international end-user telecommunications revenues.
7
  The Universal Service Administrative 
Company (USAC) currently administers the USF.
8
  USAC uses contributors’ revenue projections, as 
reported on Form 499-Q, to determine each contributor’s monthly universal service contribution 
obligation and bills the carrier accordingly each month.
9
  Consistent with the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA),
10
USAC transfers invoices for USF contributions that have become 
over 90 days delinquent to the Commission for further action to collect the outstanding debt.
11
  A 
provider’s failure to pay its share into the USF skews the playing field by giving the provider an 
economic advantage over its competitors, who must then shoulder more than their fair share of the costs 
of universal service.  
3. Section 251(e)(1) of the Act directs the Commission to oversee the administration of 
telecommunications numbering to ensure the availability of telephone numbers on an equitable basis.
12
  
Section 251(e)(2) of the Act requires that “[t]he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering 
administration arrangements . . . shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively 
neutral basis as determined by the Commission.”
13
  In carrying out this statutory directive, the 
Commission adopted Section 52.17 of its rules, which requires, among other things, that all 
telecommunications carriers contribute on the basis of their end-user telecommunications revenues for the 
prior calendar year on a competitively neutral basis to meet the costs of numbering administration.
14
                                                          
6
47 U.S.C. § 254(d).  
7
47 C.F.R. §§ 54.706(b), 54.711, 64.1195; see also 47 U.S.C. § 254(d) (“Any other provider of interstate 
telecommunications may be required to contribute to the preservation and advancement of universal service if the 
public interest so requires.”).
8
47 C.F.R. § 54.701(a).
9
See id. §§ 54.709(a), 54.713(b).  The monthly bills are subject to an annual true-up based on the actual revenues 
that contributors report on FCC Form 499-A.  See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Petition for 
Reconsideration Filed by AT&T, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 5748, 5755, para. 19 
& n.32 (2001) (Quarterly Reporting Order); 47 C.F.R. § 54.709(a).  Form 499-A is also known as the Annual 
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet or Annual Worksheet.
10
See Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1358.  
11
See USAC, Understanding Invoices, available at http://www.universalservice.org/cont/invoices/ (last visited Apr. 
28, 2012).  Debt collection procedures may include further administrative efforts by both the Commission and the 
United States Treasury or, as appropriate, Commission referral of the delinquent debt to the Department of Justice 
for enforced collection action.  47 C.F.R. § 1.1917.  Collection efforts may result in additional charges, including 
interest and penalties, as provided under 31 U.S.C. § 3717, and administrative charges pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 
§§ 1.1940, 54.713 and 31 C.F.R. § 285.12(j).
12
47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1).
13
Id. § 251(e)(2).
14
47 C.F.R. § 52.17.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
4. Section 251(b)(2) of the Act establishes that every telecommunications carrier has a duty to 
provide local number portability in accordance with requirements established by the Commission.
15
  
Section 251(e)(2) of the Act requires, in pertinent part, that “[t]he cost of establishing . . . number 
portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as 
determined by the Commission.”
16
  In implementing this statutory directive, the Commission adopted 
Section 52.32 of its rules, which requires, among other things, that all telecommunications carriers 
contribute to the costs of local number portability on the basis of their end-user telecommunications 
revenues for the prior calendar year.
17
  
5. Pursuant to Section 1.1151 of the Commission’s rules, providers of interstate 
telecommunications services and other providers must pay regulatory fees to the Commission to cover the 
costs of certain regulatory activities.
18
  In particular, Sections 1.1154 and 1.1157(b)(1) of the 
Commission’s rules require that interstate telecommunications carriers pay regulatory fees on the basis of 
their interstate and international end-user revenues.
19
  Such fees must be paid on an annual basis,
20
and 
failure to do so subjects a carrier to late payment penalties, as well as to possible revocation of its 
operating authority.
21
  Further, under its “red light rule,” the Commission withholds action on applications 
or requests for benefits from any entity that has failed to timely meet its USF, TRS, NANP, and LNP 
contribution obligations or to pay its regulatory fees when due, and ultimately dismisses such applications 
or other requests if the delinquencies are not resolved.
22
6. The Commission has established specific procedures for the administration of the USF, 
numbering, LNP, regulatory fee, and other associated federal regulatory programs.  The procedures 
include the requirement that each telecommunications provider file accurate company-specific revenue 
data on FCC Form 499-A annually.
23
  With certain exceptions, interstate telecommunications providers 
also must file good faith estimates of their projected revenue on Form 499-Q.
24
  The numbering program 
and LNP administrators and the Commission use the data reported on Form 499-A to determine and bill 
for the telecommunications provider’s LNP administration, numbering administration, and regulatory fee 
payment obligations, and USAC uses that data as well as the data reported on Form 499-Q to determine 
                                                          
15
47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2).
16
Id. § 251(e)(2).
17
47 C.F.R. § 52.32.
18
Section 9(a)(1) of the Act directs the Commission to “assess and collect regulatory fees to recover the costs of the 
following regulatory activities of the Commission:  enforcement activities, policy and rulemaking activities, user 
information services, and international activities.”  47 U.S.C. § 159(a)(1); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1151.
19
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1).
20
Id. § 1.1157(b)(1).  Section 1.1154 of the Commission’s rules sets forth the schedule of annual regulatory charges 
and filing locations for common carrier services.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1154.
21
See 47 U.S.C. § 159(c)(1), (c)(3).
22
47 C.F.R. § 1.1910.  The “red light rule” took effect on November 1, 2004.  See FCC Announces Brief Delay in 
Enforcement of Red Light Rule, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 19452 (2004).
23
See 47 C.F.R. § 54.711(a); see also, e.g., FCC Form 499-A Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet ? Annual 
Filing, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form499-A/499a-2012.pdf (last visited May 15, 2012).
24
See 47 C.F.R. § 54.711(a); Quarterly Reporting Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5755, para. 19; see also FCC Form 499-Q 
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet ? Quarterly Filing for Universal Service Contributors, available at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form499-Q/499q-2012.pdf  (last visited May 15, 2012).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
and bill for the provider’s USF contribution obligations.
25
  Carriers must pay their contribution invoices in 
a timely manner,
26
and the Commission’s rules explicitly warn contributors that failure to file forms or 
submit payments potentially subjects them to enforcement action.
27
7. Telseven is a Florida-based company that held itself out and registered with the 
Commission
28
as a “provider of interstate telecommunications services.”
29
  Telseven described its 
telecommunications service as an “interstate Enhanced Number Assistance Directory Service” 
(ENADA).
30
  This service, according to Telseven, offered consumers the ability to obtain information 
about recently disconnected or out-of-service toll free numbers.
31
  A consumer using this service would 
                                                          
25
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154 (regulatory fees), 52.17 (numbering), 52.32 (LNP), 54.709 (USF).  
26
See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 54.711(a) (“The Commission shall announce by Public Notice published in the Federal 
Register and on its website the manner of payment and the dates by which payments must be made.”); Proposed 
Fourth Quarter 2011 Contribution Factor, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 12943, 12946 (Off. Managing Dir. 2011) 
(“Contribution payments are due on the date shown on the invoice.”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 54.713(b) (noting that if a 
USF “contributor fails to make full payment on or before the date due of . . . monthly invoice provided by the 
Administrator, the payment is delinquent”).  The Act and our rules, however, do not condition payment on receipt of 
an invoice or other notice from USAC, other program administrator, or the Commission.  See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 
§ 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(b).  For instance, a carrier that does not file Form 499-A or Form 499-Q may not 
receive an invoice from USAC, but is nonetheless required to contribute to the USF, unless its revenues are 
considered de minimis.  See Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 
19893, 19896, para. 5 n.22 (2003) (Globcom NAL) (subsequent history omitted).  In the case of USF contributions, 
providers whose contribution obligation in a given year is less than $10,000 are considered de minimis and 
exempted from contributing to the USF for that year.  See 47 C.F.R. § 54.708.  Filers do not calculate the amounts 
that they must contribute in the Quarterly and Annual Worksheets.  Rather, the USF, TRS, NANP, and LNP 
administrators use the revenue information on these Worksheets to calculate a funding base and individual 
contributions for each support mechanism.  See, e.g., 2012 Telecommunications Worksheet Instructions (FCC Form 
499-A) at 31, available at http://www.fcc.gov/document/2012-form-499-instructions (last visited May 9, 2012).  
27
47 C.F.R. § 54.713.
28
See Telseven, LLC “Registration Detail,” available at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/coresWeb/searchDetail.do?frn= 
0009834466 (last visited May 15, 2012).  Telseven also obtained authorization, pursuant to Section 214 of the 
Communications Act and Section 63.18 of the Commission’s rules, to provide international telecommunications 
services.  See International Authorizations Granted, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4036 (Int’l Bur. 2004).
29
Telseven, LLC, d/b/a Calling 101 10 275, Calling 10 1515 800, Calling 10 10 141, Application for Authority to 
Provide Service in Accordance with Section 63.18(e)(2) of the Rules, Attach. 1 at Response to Question 9 (filed Feb. 
6, 2004) (“Telseven . . . is a competitive provider of interstate telecommunications services.”), available at
http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgibin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_ 
numberC/File+Number/%3D/ITC2142004020900047&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numb
erC/File+Number (last visited May 14, 2012); FCC Form 499 Filer Database Detailed Information, Filer 
Identification for Telseven, available at http://apps.fcc.gov/cgb/form499/499detail.cfm?FilerNum=823700 (last 
visited May 11, 2012) (based on Telseven’s Form 499 filings, listing all states except Alaska and Nevada as 
jurisdictions in which Telseven provides telecommunications services); see Letter from Wendy M. Creeden, 
Counsel for Telseven, LLC, Sullivan & Worcester, LLP, to Elizabeth Mumaw, Attorney Advisor, Investigations & 
Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, at Responses to Questions 1–2 (Sept. 22, 2008) (on file in EB-08-IH-
1386) (Telseven Sept. 22 Letter). 
30
Telseven Sept. 22 Letter at Response to Question 2.
31
See Telseven, LLC, Calling 10, LLC d/b/a California Calling 10, and Patrick Hines, Response to the Order 
Instituting Investigation and Denial of All Assertions of Possible Violation of California Law of Telseven, LLC, 
Calling 10, LLC d/b/a California Calling 10, and Patrick Hines, an Individual, Case No. I.10-12-010, at 9-10 (Cal. 
Pub. Util. Comm’n, filed Jan. 21, 2011) (Telseven Response to Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n Investigation Order).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
contact Telseven by dialing one of the approximately one million such numbers that Telseven 
controlled.
32
  A consumer dialing one of these numbers typically heard a message offering Telseven’s 
assistance in finding the current toll-free number of the party the consumer was trying to reach.
33
  A 
recorded message would then provide the consumer with an “equal access code” (i.e., dial-around 
number) for contacting Telseven’s directory assistance platform in Nevada.
34
  Consumers dialing this 
equal access code would have their calls transmitted to the Nevada platform by Telseven, rather than by 
the consumer’s prescribed long distance carrier.
35
  Since Telseven did not offer service in Nevada, all 
calls using this equal access number were interstate long distance calls.
8. Telseven imposed per call charges on many of the consumers who contacted its Nevada 
platform.  These charges included, in addition to any fees that Telseven imposed for transmission to the 
Nevada platform and the other aspects of Telseven’s purported service, a per call “Federal Universal 
Service Fund charge.”
36
  Telseven also “charge[d] an administrative recovery fee of $1.65 in any month” 
the consumer dialed its “directory assistance service . . . to offset the cost Telseven incurs in complying 
with regulatory obligations” including “the cost of complying with the Federal Universal Service 
Charge.”
37
9. On July 2, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) issued a letter of inquiry (LOI) to 
Telseven seeking information about its compliance with the USF contribution rules and other related 
regulatory obligations.
38
  On September 22, 2008, Telseven responded to the LOI.
39
  In response to the 
Bureau’s requests for additional financial information and the identity of all Telseven affiliates, Telseven 
filed supplemental information on December 18, 2009, June 15, 2010, and July 12, 2010.
40
  The 
information developed through the Bureau’s investigation indicates that Telseven apparently failed to 
fully and timely contribute to the USF and the NANP and LNP cost recovery mechanisms, provide good 
                                                          
32
See Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Order Instituting Investigation into the Operations of Telseven, LLC, Calling 10, 
LLC, and Patrick Hines, Case No. I.10-12-010, at 7 (issued Dec. 21, 2010) (Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n Investigation 
Order); Post-Hearing Brief of Consumer Protection & Safety Div., Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Case No. I.10-12-010, 
at 29 (filed Apr. 6, 2012) (Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n Post-Hearing Brief); Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Telseven Hearing, 
Testimony of Patrick B. Hines, Case No. I.10-12-010, at 389 (Nov. 17, 2011).
33
See Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n Post-Hearing Brief at 32.
34
See Telseven Response to Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n Investigation Order at 10.
35
See Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Opening Brief of Calling 10, LLC d/b/a California Calling 10. Telseven, LLC and 
Patrick Hines, Case No. I.10-12-010, at 41 (Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, filed Apr. 6, 2011).
36
See “Telseven.com – Welcome to Telseven LLC,” available at http://telseven.com (Jan. 23, 2012) (on file in EB-
08-IH-1386).
37
See “Telseven.com – Rates,” available at http://telseven.com/rate.html (Jan. 23, 2012) (on file in EB-08-IH-
1386).
38
Letter from Trent B. Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to 
Patrick Hines, Chief Executive Officer, Telseven (Jul. 2, 2008) (on file in EB-08-IH-1386).
39
Telseven Sept. 22 Letter.
40
Letter from Wendy M. Creeden, Counsel for Telseven, to Robert B. Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations & 
Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 18, 2009) (on file in EB-08-IH-1386); Letter from Kathy L. 
Cooper, Counsel for Telseven, to Michele Berlove, Deputy Div. Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, FCC 
Enforcement Bureau (Jun. 15, 2010) (on file in EB-08-IH-1386); Letter from Kathy L. Cooper, Counsel for 
Telseven, to Robert B. Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations & Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau 
(Jul. 12, 2010) (on file in EB-08-IH-1386).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
faith estimates of its projected telecommunication revenue in its Quarterly Worksheets, and pay its annual 
regulatory fees to the Commission.
41
10. On April 20, 2012, Telseven filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy 
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.
42
  Telseven informed the Bureau of this 
Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing on April 23, 2012.
43
  By April 26, 2012, Telseven’s Internet website stated 
that the Company is “no longer providing services.”
44
  
III. DISCUSSION
11. 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.
45
  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.
46
  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,
47
and the 
                                                          
41
See Telseven Sept. 22 Letter at Response to Questions 9, 11–14; see also, e.g., E-mail from Fred Theobald, 
USAC, to Robert Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 
31, 2012, 13:28 EDT) (attaching USAC billing history for Telseven); E-mail from Fred Theobald, USAC, to Robert 
Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Feb. 14, 2012, 9:20 
EDT); E-mail from Fred Theobald, USAC, to Robert Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings 
Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Apr. 12, 2012, 11:41 EDT); E-mail from Fred Theobald, USAC, to Robert 
Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Apr. 13, 2012, 14:04 
EDT) (Fourth Theobald E-mail); E-mail from Fred Theobald, USAC, to Robert Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (May 1, 2012, 9:04 EDT) (Fifth Theobald E-mail); 
E-mail from Fred Theobald, USAC, to Robert Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, 
FCC Enforcement Bureau (May 2, 2012, 13:17 EDT) (Sixth Theobald E-mail); E-mail from Heather Bambrough, 
Welch, LLP, to Robert Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau 
(Jan. 24, 2012, 12:16 EDT) (regarding Telseven’s NANP payment deficiency); E-mail from Heather Bambrough, 
Welch, LLP, to Robert Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau 
(Jan. 24, 2012, 13:49 EDT) (Second Bambrough E-mail); E-mail from Karen Laffey, Neustar, Inc., to Robert 
Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 27, 2012, 16:54 
EDT) (E-mail from Karen Laffey, Neustar, Inc., to Robert Krinsky, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings 
Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Apr. 23, 2012, 12:00 EDT) (Second Laffey E-mail) (attaching spreadsheet 
listing delinquent invoice amounts); E-mail from Ann Monahan, Financial Management Specialist, FCC Office of 
the Managing Director (Feb. 3, 2012, 9:29 EDT) (First Monahan E-mail); E-mail from Ann Monahan, Financial 
Management Specialist, FCC Office of the Managing Director (Feb. 6, 2012, 16:09 EDT).
42
Notification from Jason B. Burnett and Paige A. Wagner, GrayRobinson, P.A., Counsel for Telseven, Notice of 
Filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, U.S. Bankr. Ct., Mid. Dist. Fla., Jacksonville Div., Case No.: 3:11-bk-2682-PMG 
(Apr. 23, 2012) (on file in EB-08-IH-1386) (stating that on April 20, 2012 Telseven had filed for Chapter 7 
bankruptcy).
43
Id.
44
See Telseven, LLC Homepage, available at http://telseven.com/ (last visited Apr. 26, 2012) (“Telseven has filed a 
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding in Jacksonville, Florida, Case No. 3:12-bk-02683.  The company is no longer 
providing services.”).
45
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  
46
47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).
47
See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97
th
Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.
48
  The Commission may also 
assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.
49
  “Repeated” means that the act 
was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day.
50
  To impose such a 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.
51
  The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds, based on the evidence, that the person 
has violated the Act or a Commission rule.
52
12. The fundamental issues in this case are whether Telseven apparently violated the Act and the 
Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to make required contributions to the USF and the 
NANP and LNP cost recovery mechanisms, by failing to file accurate Quarterly Worksheets, and by 
failing to pay required regulatory fees to the Commission.
53
  We answer these questions in the affirmative.  
As set forth below, we conclude that Telseven is apparently liable for forfeiture for willful or repeated 
violations of Section 251(e)(2) and 254(d) of the Act and Sections 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1), 52.17, 52.32(a), 
54.706, and 54.711 of the Commission’s rules.  Based on the facts and circumstances before us, we 
therefore conclude that Telseven is apparently liable for forfeitures totaling one million, seven hundred 
fifty-eight thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,758,465).
A. Telseven Apparently Failed to Make Full and Timely Universal Service Fund 
Contributions
13. We conclude that Telseven apparently violated Section 254(d) of the Act and Section 
54.706(a) of the Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to contribute fully and timely to the 
universal service support mechanisms.
54
  Section 54.706(a) of the Commission’s rules unambiguously 
directs that “[e]ntities [providing] interstate telecommunications to the public . . . for a fee . . . must 
contribute to the universal service support mechanisms.”
55
  As set forth above,
56
Telseven not only held 
itself out as—and has registered as—a provider of “interstate telecommunications services,” but 
apparently also provided and charged for the interstate long distance transmission to its Nevada platform.  
Indeed, Telseven’s fees to the public apparently included both per-call and monthly charges for the 
USF.
57
  Those fees, in combination with Telseven’s registration with the Commission as a provider of 
                                                          
48
See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 
5 (1991) (Southern California Broadcasting).
49
See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 
1362, para. 10 (2001) (Callais Cablevision) (issuing an NAL for, inter alia, a cable television operator’s repeated 
violation of the cable signal leakage rules). 
50
Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5; Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, para. 9.
51
47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).
52
See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, para. 4 (2002).
53
47 U.S.C. §§ 251(e)(2), 254(d); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1), 52.17(a), 52.32(a), 54.706, 54.711(a).
54
47 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).  
55
47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).  
56
Supra paras. 7–8. 
57
See “Telseven.com – Rates,” available at http://telseven.com/rate.html (Jan. 23, 2012) (on file in EB-08-IH-1386) 
(“Note that Telseven charges an administrative recovery fee of $1.65 in any month you dial our directory assistance 
(continued …)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
interstate telecommunications services, make clear that Telseven was holding itself out to the public as 
providing an interstate telecommunications service.  
14. According to USAC, Telseven’s outstanding balance due for delinquent USF contributions 
is $1,056,929.62.
58
  Our rules direct USAC to apply the “American Rule” of accounting whereby any 
USF payment of less than the total amount due is applied first to the oldest past due debt.
59
  On the basis 
of that rule, USAC determined that the last monthly USF invoice that Telseven paid in full was the 
invoice dated October 22, 2007 and due November 15, 2007, and that the last monthly USF invoice that 
Telseven partially paid was the invoice dated November 22, 2007 and due December 14, 2007.
60
15. In its April 2009 and July 2009 Form 499-Q filings, Telseven projected such low 
telecommunications revenues that USAC placed the company in de minimis status for 2009, meaning that 
Telseven would not be required to contribute to the USF for that year.
61
  Based on the actual revenues 
reported by Telseven on its Form 499-A for 2009, Telseven was not de minimis in 2009.
62
  This resulted 
in subsequent true-up billing by USAC for each month from July 2010 through September 2010.
63
  The 
last invoice USAC issued to Telseven with new USF contribution charges was for September 2010.
64
  For 
each month from October 2010 through February 2011, inclusive, the invoices USAC issued to Telseven 
added interest on unpaid obligations and DCIA penalty charges as our rules require.
65
  After February 
2011, USAC transferred all of Telseven’s outstanding USF debt to the Commission for collection in 
accordance with the DCIA.  USAC therefore has not sent any additional invoices to Telseven since 
February 22, 2011.
66
  The absence of a monthly invoice from USAC, however, does not relieve Telseven 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
service.  This fee is intended to offset the cost Telseven incurs in complying with regulatory obligations and includes 
the cost of complying with the Federal Universal Service Charge.”).
58
See Fifth Theobald E-mail (updating on May 1, 2012 Telseven USF data prepared on January 26, 2012).
59
47 C.F.R. § 54.713(e); see also Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, 
Administration, and Oversight, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372, 16380–81, para. 16 (2007).
60
See USAC, “Telseven Invoice History,” attached to Fourth Theobald E-mail; Fifth Theobald E-mail; USAC 
Invoices to Telseven, Invoice Nos. UBDI0000274287 (statement date Oct. 22, 2007), UBDI0000279222 (statement 
date Nov. 22, 2007).
61
See Telseven’s Form 499-Q for Projected Third Quarter Revenues 2009 (received by USAC Apr. 24, 2009); 
Telseven’s Form 499-Q for Projected Fourth Quarter Revenues 2009) (received by USAC Jul. 23, 2009); see also
Fourth Theobald E-mail.  Section 54.708 of the Commission’s rules provides, in pertinent part, that if “a 
contributor’s contribution to universal service in any given year is less than $10,000 that contributor will not be 
required to submit a contribution . . . .”  47 C.F.R. § 54.708.
62
See Telseven 2009 Form 499-A Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet (reporting actual revenues for 
calendar year 2009) (received by USAC on Mar. 29, 2010) (Telseven 2009 Form 499-A); Fourth Theobald E-mail.
63
See Telseven 2010 Form 499-A (reporting 2009 revenue); USAC Invoices to Telseven, Invoice Nos. 
UBDI0000432028 (statement date Jul. 22, 2010), UBDI0000438013 (statement date Aug. 20, 2010), 
UBDI0000444156 (statement date Sept. 22, 2010); see also Fourth Theobald E-mail.
64
USAC Invoice to Telseven, Invoice No. UBDI0000450029 (statement date Oct. 22, 2010); see also Fourth 
Theobald E-mail.
65
See 47 C.F.R. § 54.713(b); USAC Invoices to Telseven, Invoice Nos. UBDI0000432028 (statement date Jul. 22, 
2010), UBDI0000456025 (statement date Nov. 22, 2010), UBDI0000462005 (statement date Dec. 22, 2010), 
UBDI0000466986 (statement date Jan. 21, 2011), UBDI0000472973 (statement date Feb. 22, 2011); see also Fourth 
Theobald E-mail.
66
See supra para. 2 (discussing DCIA). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
of its outstanding payment obligations.  The Commission has repeatedly stated that carriers must pay their 
obligations to USAC regardless of whether or not they receive a bill from USAC.
67
  Telseven’s violations 
for unpaid USF contributions continued with each subsequent day on which it failed to make full 
payment.
68
  Based on the record, we find that Telseven has apparently violated Section 254(d) of the Act 
and Section 54.706 of the Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to contribute fully and 
timely to the USF from December 2007 to April 2012, inclusive.
B. Telseven Apparently Failed to Provide Good Faith Estimates of Its Quarterly 
Telecommunications Revenue
16. Our rules require carriers to file good faith estimates of their quarterly telecommunications 
revenue on Form 499–Q.
69
  A carrier’s failure to provide such estimates has serious implications for the 
USF program because USAC uses the revenue reported on Form 499–Q to calculate each carrier’s 
monthly USF contribution obligation, if any, subject to an annual true-up based on the actual revenues, as 
reported on the entity’s Form 499-A.  
17. The Forms 499–Q that Telseven filed in April 2009 and July 2009 apparently failed to 
provide good faith estimates of Telseven’s projected telecommunications revenue for the third and fourth 
quarters of 2009.
70
  In those Quarterly Worksheets, Telseven projected revenues sufficiently low for 
USAC to place Telseven in de minimis status for 2009.
71
  Telseven’s actual revenue for 2009, as reported 
on its Form 499-A filing due April 1, 2010, was more than three times greater than Telseven had 
predicted in its Form 499-Q filings and showed that Telseven did not qualify for de minimis status in 
2009.  USAC determined that Telseven’s actual revenues meant that it had a $13,444.62 contribution 
obligation to the USF for 2009.
72
  We deem the difference between Telseven projected revenue, as 
reported on its Forms 499–Q and its actual revenue, as reported on its Forms 499–A, to be so significant 
as to show that the Form 499–Q revenue estimates were apparently not made in good faith, as Section 
54.711(a) of our rules requires.  Based on the record, we therefore find that Telseven apparently violated 
                                                          
67
See, e.g., Telrite Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7239 n.53 (2008) (Telrite 
NAL); Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, Order of Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4710, 4712, para. 5 
(2006) (Globcom Forfeiture Order); BCE Nexxia Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability, 20 FCC Rcd 15121, 15124, 
15126, paras. 10, 15 (2005).
68
See, e.g., Kajeet Inc. and Kajeet/Airlink, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 
16684, 16690, para. 13 (2011) (Kajeet NAL); Telrite NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 7239, para. 16; Globcom Forfeiture 
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4723, para. 35 n.105 (2006); Matrix Telecom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 13544, 13546, para. 7 (2000); Conquest Operator Services Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 14 
FCC Rcd 12518, 12525, para. 16 (1999); see also Compass Global, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,  
23 FCC Rcd 6125, 6140, para. 33 (Compass Global NAL); Global Crossing North America, Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6110, 6121, para. 24 (2008) (Global Crossing NAL).
69
See 47 C.F.R. § 54.711(a); Quarterly Reporting Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5755, para. 19.
70
See supra note 63 and accompanying text.
71
See 47 C.F.R. § 54.708 (stating that “[i]f a contributor’s contribution to universal service in any given year is less 
than $10,000 that contributor will not be required to submit a [USF] contribution . . . for that year”).
72
See Fourth Theobald E-mail; USAC Invoices to Telseven, Invoice Nos. UBDI0000432028 (statement date Jul. 22, 
2010), UBDI0000438013 (statement date Aug. 20, 2010), UBDI0000444156 (statement date Sept. 22, 2010); 
Telseven’s Form 499-A for calendar year 2009 (received by USAC Mar. 29, 2010); USAC Invoices to Telseven, 
Invoice Nos. UBDI0000432028 (statement date Jul. 22, 2010), UBDI0000438013 (statement date Aug. 20, 2010), 
UBDI0000444156 (statement date Sept. 22, 2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
Section 54.711(a) by willfully or repeatedly filing Forms 499–Q that failed to provide good faith 
estimates of Telseven’s quarterly telecommunications revenue.
C. Telseven Apparently Failed To Make Full and Timely Contributions to the 
NANP Cost Recovery Mechanism
18. We further find that Telseven has apparently violated Section 251(e)(2) of the Act and 
Section 52.17(a) of the Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to make timely contributions 
toward the costs of number administration.  As a provider of interstate telecommunications service, 
Telseven was obligated to contribute to the NANP administration cost recovery mechanisms on the basis 
of the end-user telecommunications revenues it reported on its Annual Worksheet (Form 499-A) during 
the period covered by this NAL.
73
19. The record demonstrates that Telseven failed to timely remit its NANP payment for 2011. 
The due date on the invoice was July 12, 2011, but the invoice remains unpaid.
74
  We therefore conclude 
based on the record that Telseven has apparently violated Section 251(e)(2) of the Act and Section 
52.17(a) of the Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to make timely NANP 
administration contributions for 2011.
75
D. Telseven Apparently Failed To Make Full and Timely Contributions to the LNP 
Cost Recovery Mechanism
20. The record demonstrates that Telseven failed to contribute fully and timely to the LNP cost 
recovery mechanism in 2005, 2010, and 2011.
76
  As of April 23, 2012, Telseven had not made payment 
on the LNP invoice issued by the LNP administrator on December 31, 2005, which was due on February 
14, 2006.
77
  Telseven made only a partial payment for 2010.
78
  It has not remitted any payment for 2011.
79
  
Telseven’s outstanding LNP contribution debt is $5,027.20.
80
  Based on the record developed in our 
investigation, we find that Telseven has apparently violated Section 251(e)(2) of the Act and Section 
52.32(a) of the Commission’s rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to contribute fully and timely to the 
LNP cost recovery mechanism in 2005, 2010, and 2011.
81
                                                          
73
47 C.F.R. § 52.17(b).  In particular, contributions to support numbering administration are based upon a 
provider’s end-user telecommunications revenues for the prior calendar year and a contribution factor determined 
annually by the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau, but in no event will be less than $25.  Id. § 52.17(a).  
NANP administration contributions are due on an annual basis, with certain exceptions not relevant here.
74
See Second Bambrough E-mail.
75
47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 52.17(a).
76
See Second Laffey E-mail.
77
See Account Summary-Telseven, LLC, attached to Second Laffey E-mail.
78
Id.
79
Id.
80
Id. 
81
See 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 52.32(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
E. Telseven Apparently Failed to Pay Its Regulatory Fees 
21. As an interstate telecommunications service provider, Telseven was required to pay 
regulatory fees on the basis of its interstate and international end-user revenues reported on its Annual 
Worksheet.
82
  According to Commission records, Telseven has not paid its annual regulatory fees to the 
Commission for 2009 and 2010.
83
  Telseven is delinquent in the amount of $22,736.25.
84
  We find that 
Telseven apparently violated Sections 1.1154 and 1.1157(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules by willfully or 
repeatedly failing to pay regulatory fee program payments when due.
85
F. Proposed Forfeitures 
22. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails 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.
86
  Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the 
Commission to assess a forfeiture against a telecommunications carrier of up to $150,000 for each 
violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act 
or failure to act.
87
  In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated 
in Section 503(b)(2)(E) 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,”
88
as well as our forfeiture guidelines.
89
23. We find that under the American Rule of accounting, in which all payments are applied first 
to the oldest outstanding debt,
90
the last Telseven USF invoice that was paid in full was the invoice issued 
on October 22, 2007 that was due on November 15, 2007, and that the last Telseven USF invoice that 
received partial payment was the invoice issued on November 22, 2007 that was due on December 14, 
2007.
91
  Since that last partial payment, Telseven has not made any payments on its outstanding USF 
obligations.  The Commission has long recognized that failure to make universal service contributions is 
an egregious offense.
92
  It not only deprives the USF of resources necessary to preserve and advance 
universal service, but it also bestows on delinquent entities an unfair competitive advantage by shifting to 
                                                          
82
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1).
83
See First Monahan E-mail.
84
Id.
85
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154, 1.1157.  Standard regulatory fees applicable to common carrier services must be paid in 
full by the due date.  47 C.F.R. § 1.1157(b)(1).
86
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(2).
87
See 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, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008).
88
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
89
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to Paragraph (b)(4): Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures.  
90
Id. § 54.713(e).
91
See USAC, “Telseven Invoice History,” attached to Fourth Theobald E-mail; Fourth Theobald E-mail; Fifth 
Theobald E-mail; Sixth Theobald E-mail; USAC Invoices to Telseven, Invoice Nos. UBDI0000274287 (statement 
date Oct. 22, 2007), UBDI0000279222 (statement date Nov. 22, 2007).
92
See, e.g., Kajeet NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 16694, para. 21; ADMA Telecom, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4152, 
4157, para. 15 (2011)(ADMA Forfeiture Order); Telrite NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 7241–42, para. 24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
compliant contributors the economic costs and burdens associated with universal service.  An entity’s 
failure to make required universal service contributions frustrates Congress’s policy objective in Section 
254(d) of the Act to ensure the equitable and non-discriminatory distribution of universal service costs 
among all telecommunications providers.
93
  The Commission has established a base forfeiture amount of 
$10,000 for each month in which a contributor has failed to fully pay required universal service 
contributions and $20,000 for each month in which a contributor has failed to make any required 
universal service contribution,
94
plus an upward adjustment based on approximately one-half of the 
largest amount of Telseven’s unpaid USF contributions during the period covered by the Commission’s 
investigation.
95
  In addition, the Commission has treated failures to pay universal service and other 
obligations as continuing violations.
96
  As noted above, because Telseven has not made any payments on 
any USF invoices since late 2007, our forfeiture calculation reflects not only violations that began within 
the last twelve months, but also violations that began prior to the last twelve months and continued during 
the twelve-month period preceding this NAL.
24. As a result, we find that Telseven is apparently liable for a forfeiture for willful or repeated 
failure to make any contribution to the USF for fifty-three months, from January 2008 to May 2012, 
inclusive.  Accordingly, we assess a $20,000 forfeiture for each of the fifty-three months in which 
Telseven failed to remit any contribution toward its outstanding USF obligation, for a total of $1,060,000.  
We also assess a $10,000 forfeiture for Telseven’s failure to fully pay the invoice due on December 14, 
2007.
97
  Thus, we find Telseven apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $1,070,000 for its willful or 
repeated failures to contribute fully and timely to the USF on fifty-four months from December 2007 to 
May 2012, inclusive.  Moreover, consistent with our approach for assessing liability for USF violations, 
and taking into account all of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, we also add an 
upward adjustment of $528,465 to the base forfeiture—approximately one-half of the largest amount of 
Telseven’s unpaid USF contributions during the period covered by the Commission’s investigation.
98
  We 
therefore find Telseven apparently liable for a forfeiture of one million, five hundred ninety-eight 
thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,598,465) for willful or repeated failures to contribute fully 
and timely to the USF. 
                                                          
93
See 47 U.S.C. § 254(d).
94
See, e.g., Kajeet NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 16694, para. 21; ADMA Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 4158, para. 15; 
Globalcom NAL, 25 FCC Rcd at 13485, para. 16; NTS Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 5137, 5142, paras. 12–13 (2010); Telrite NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 7242–44, paras. 25–28; 
Compass Global, NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 6138–40, paras. 31–34; Global Crossing NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 6120, para. 
21; OCMC, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 10479, 10482, para. 10 (2006); Globcom Forfeiture Order, 21 
FCC Rcd at 4721–24, paras. 31–38.  
95
See, e.g., Kajeet NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 16696, para. 26; ADMA Telecom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 838, 852–53, para. 34 (2009)(ADMA NAL); Telrite NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 7243, para. 28. 
96
See, e.g., Kajeet NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 16694, para. 21; ADMA Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 4159 n.56; Telrite 
NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 7245–46, para. 36; Compass Global NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 6140–42, paras. 34–38; Global 
Crossing NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 6120–23, paras. 21–27. 
97
See USAC Invoice to Telseven, Invoice No. UBDI0000274287 (statement dated Oct. 22, 2007); see also Fourth 
Theobald E-mail.
98
The American Rule of accounting was applied to determine the largest unpaid invoice.  See USAC, “Telseven 
Invoice History,” attached to Fourth Theobald E-mail; USAC Invoice Telseven, Invoice No. UBDI0000283967 
(statement dated Dec. 21, 2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
25. As we noted above, a carrier’s obligation to file Annual and Quarterly Worksheets providing 
good faith estimates of its telecommunications revenue is directly linked to, and thus has serious 
implications for, administration of the USF, TRS, NANP, LNP and regulatory fee programs.  Telseven 
filed two Quarterly Worksheets that apparently failed to meet this standard.  The Commission has 
established precedent for a forfeiture of $50,000 for failure to file a Worksheet or for filing an inaccurate 
Quarterly or Annual Worksheet.
99
  We find a forfeiture of $50,000 also appropriate for filing a Quarterly 
Worksheet that fails to provide a good faith estimate of the filer’s projected telecommunications revenue.  
Accordingly, we find that Telseven is apparently liable for a forfeiture of one hundred thousand dollars 
($100,000) for its willful or repeated failure to file Quarterly Worksheets providing such good faith 
estimates by the May 1 and August 1, 2009 filing deadlines.  
26. We also conclude that Telseven apparently failed to contribute to the NANP administration 
cost recovery mechanism in 2011.  The failure to make required NANP administration contributions 
hampers the Commission’s ability to ensure that the cost of establishing telecommunications numbering 
administration arrangements is “borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral 
basis” as Congress envisioned.
100
  The Commission has generally established a base forfeiture amount of 
$10,000 for each instance in which a contributor fails to make required contributions to the NANP 
administration cost recovery mechanism.  Consequently, and consistent with precedent,
101
we find that 
Telseven is apparently liable for a forfeiture of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful or repeated 
failure to make full and timely payment of its required contribution toward the NANP administration cost 
recovery mechanism for 2011.
102
27. We also find that Telseven is apparently liable for a forfeiture for willfully or repeatedly 
failing to make full and timely contributions toward LNP cost recovery mechanisms in 2005, 2010, and 
2011.  The Commission has prescribed a $10,000 base forfeiture amount for failure to pay LNP 
contributions.
103
  We therefore find Telseven apparently liable for a forfeiture of thirty thousand dollars 
($30,000) for its willful and repeated failure to make full and timely payment of its required contribution 
toward the LNP administration cost recovery mechanism for 2005, 2010, and 2011.
28. Finally, we conclude that Telseven has apparently failed to fully pay its regulatory fees to 
the Commission.  Telseven’s violations for failing to fully pay its regulatory fees are continuing until the 
amounts owed are fully paid.
104
  The Commission has established a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for 
failure to make required regulatory fee payments.
105
  We find Telseven apparently liable for a forfeiture of 
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful or repeated failures to fully pay its regulatory fees to the 
Commission for 2009 and 2010.
                                                          
99
See, e.g., ADMA NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 851–52, para. 31; Telrite NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 7244, para. 31. 
100
47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2).
101
See, e.g., ADMA NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 853, para. 36; Telrite NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 7245, para. 33; Teletronics, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability of Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13291, 13303, para. 35 (2005). 
102
See, e.g., Omniat International Telecom, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 
4265, para. 28 (2009); ADMA NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 852, para. 37.
103
See, e.g., Kajeet NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 16695, para. 24; Telrite NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 7245, para. 34.
104
See, e.g., Telrite NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 7245, para. 35.
105
See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
G. All Obligations under This NAL Extend to Mr. Patrick Hines 
29. The Commission may “pierce the corporate veil” and hold one entity or individual liable for 
the acts or omissions of a different, related entity when:  (1) there is a common identity of officers, 
directors or shareholders; (2) there is common control between the entities; and (3) it is necessary to 
preserve the integrity of the Communications Act and to prevent the entities from defeating the purpose 
and provisions of statutory provisions.
106
  In Capital Telephone Co. v. FCC, for example, the United 
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission’s decision to pierce the corporate 
veil of an applicant for a paging frequency license after concluding that (a) the applicant was wholly-
owned and controlled by another applicant for a paging frequency in the same area at a different location 
and (b) “[i]t would do violence to the statutory command to grant both desirable frequencies to a single 
commonly controlled enterprise having only one real owner.”
107
  
30. Here, Telseven appears to be the corporate vehicle for the activities of just one person, Mr. 
Patrick B. Hines, a/k/a P. Brian Hines.
108
  Mr. Hines is the sole officer and director of Telseven, and as 
such has exercised complete control over Telseven.
109
  Mr. Hines is also a beneficiary, and likely the sole 
beneficiary, of the Patrick Hines Revocable Trust, which owns 100 percent of Telseven.
110
  Indeed, Mr. 
Hines has been identified in official Commission filings as holding 100 percent of Telseven’s equity, 
either directly or indirectly.
111
  Further, in a proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission, 
Telseven acknowledged that it is wholly-owned by the Patrick Hines Revocable Trust and confirmed that 
it “is not operated by any other entity . . . not controlled by any other entity . . . [and] is not managed by 
any other entity.”
112
  Thus, it appears that Mr. Hines is the sole owner of Telseven.  Telseven also 
                                                          
106
See APPC Service, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, Davel Communications, Inc., Jaroth, Inc. D/B/A Pacific 
Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp., (Complainants) v. NetworkIP, LLC, and Network 
Enhanced Telecom, LLP, (Defendants), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 4286, 4307, para. 47 (2007) 
(citations omitted).
107
Capital Telephone Co. v. FCC, 498 F.2d 734 at 737 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (Capital Telephone); see Mansfield Journal 
Co. (FM) v. FCC, 180 F.2d 28, 37 (D.C. Cir. 1950) (piercing corporate veil where one family owned all of the stock 
in both entities and the owners took active part in the control and formulations of both entities).
108
See Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Hearing Transcript-Testimony of Patrick B. Hines, Case No. I.10-21-010 at 226-27, 
(Nov. 16, 2011) (When asked by the administrative law judge to state his name for the record, Mr. Hines responded 
“Patrick Hines, Patrick Brian Hines, H-i-n-e-s”); see also Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Consumer Protection & Safety 
Div., Response of Consumer Protection & Safety Division to Respondent Patrick Hines’ Motion to Stay or Dismiss 
for Lack of Jurisdiction at 11 (May 4, 2012) (noting that Patrick B. Hines and P. Brian Hines are the same person, 
and that Mr. Hines is using the “P. Brian Hines” presentation of his name for purposes of the Bankruptcy Court 
litigation).
109
See Telseven Sept. 22 Letter at Response to Question 3.
110
See Calif. Pub. Utilities Comm’n, Case. No. I.10-12-010, Evidentiary Hearing Transcript at 302; Statement of 
Financial Affairs, In re: Telseven, LLC, U.S. Bankr. Ct., Mid. Dist. Fla., Jacksonville Div., Case No. 3:12-bk-
02682-PMG, Item 20 “Current Partners, Officers, Directors, and Shareholders” (filed May 4, 2012); see also 
Corporate Ownership Statement (Rule 7008.1), In re: Telseven, LLC, U.S. Bankr. Ct., Middle Dist. Fla. 
(Jacksonville Div.), Case No. 3:12-bk-02682-PMG at Item 20 “Current Partners, Officers, Directors, and 
Shareholders” (filed May 4, 2012).
111
  See International Section 214 Application of Telseven, LLC, FCC File Number ITC2142004020900047, 
Attachment 2, granted Dec. 1, 2005, DA 05-3129, Report No. TEL-00970. 
112
See Telseven, LLC and California Calling 10, LLC, Response to Inquiry 19 of the Feb. 19, 2009 Data Request 
from Calif. Pub. Util. Comm’n, (Mar. 20, 2009), incorporated as part of documents assembled in re: Calf. Pub. Util. 
Comm’n, Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission’s own motion into the operations, practices, and 
(continued …)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
identified Mr. Hines as its president in its company registration information provided to the Commission 
through the Commission Registration System (CORES).
113
  On January 5, 2004, Mr. Hines, acting in his 
capacity as the president of Telseven, executed the Company’s “Articles of Amendment of 
Organization.”
114
  
31. As in Capital Telephone Co, it is necessary here to look beyond the Telseven corporate 
name and take “cognizance of the identity of ownership and control” between Telseven and Patrick Hines 
in order to implement core statutory directives and our implementing rules.
115
  Specifically, Section 
254(d) of the Act mandates that “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate 
telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis” to the USF.
116
  
Similarly, Section 251(e)(2) of the Act requires that all telecommunications carriers shall bear 
telecommunications numbering and number portability costs on a competitively neutral basis.
117
  Finally, 
Section 503(b)(1) of the Act specifies that “[a]ny person who is determined by the Commission . . . to 
have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any of the provisions of [the] Act or [Commission] 
rule . . . shall be liable . . . for a forfeiture penalty.”
118
  In these circumstances, we are entitled to look 
through Telseven’s corporate structure to prevent Mr. Hines from using a corporate entity to circumvent 
these statutory directives and our rules implementing them.  Because Mr. Hines apparently solely owns, 
controls, and manages Telseven, we find it consistent with our precedent to hold Mr. Hines personally 
liable for the actions of Telseven.  Accordingly, for purposes of this NAL, the term Telseven includes 
Patrick Hines personally and all obligations under this NAL therefore also extend to Mr. Hines.
IV. CONCLUSION
32. In light of the seriousness, duration, and scope of the apparent violations, we propose 
forfeitures totaling one million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars 
$1,758,465) against Telseven,
119
consisting of one million, five hundred ninety-eight thousand, four 
hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,598,465) for failure to make full and timely USF contributions; one 
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for failure to file accurate Quarterly Telecommunications Reporting 
Worksheets; ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for failure to make full and timely NANP contributions; thirty 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
conduct of Telseven, LLC, Calling 10, LLC dba California Calling 10, (U-7015-C), and Patrick Hines, an 
individual, to determine whether Telseven, Calling 10, and Patrick Hines have violated the laws, rules and 
regulations of this State in the provision of directory assistance services to California consumers, Case No. I.10-12-
010, Document No. PUC0226 at para. 3 (filed Dec. 16, 2010).
113
See FCC Registration system –Telseven Profile, available at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/coresWeb/serch 
Detail.do?frn=0009834466 (last visited May 15, 2012).
114
See Telseven Sept. 22 Letter at Response to Question 1, Exhibit A: “Telseven Articles of Organization.”
115
Capital Telephone, 498 F.2d at 738.  
116
47 U.S.C. § 254(d).
117
Id. § 251(e)(2); see also id. § 159(a) (requiring that the Commission collect regulatory fees to recover the costs of 
its regulatory activities).
118
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1).
119
Telseven continues to have unpaid outstanding balances due to USAC, the LNP and NANP Administrators, and 
the Commission.  We note that payment of the forfeitures proposed in this NAL will not absolve Telseven of its 
obligations to pay its delinquent balances.  As discussed above in paragraph 2, debt collection procedures may 
include further administrative efforts both by the Commission and by the United States Treasury or, as appropriate, 
referral of the delinquent debt to the Department of Justice for enforced collection action.  47 C.F.R. § 1.1917.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
thousand dollars ($30,000) for failure to make full and timely LNP contributions; and twenty thousand 
dollars ($20,000) for failure to make full and timely regulatory fee payments to the Commission.  
33. We caution that additional violations of the Act or the Commission’s rules could subject 
Telseven and its principal to further enforcement action.  Such action could take the form of higher 
monetary forfeitures, disqualification of Telseven’s principals, including Mr. Hines, from providing any
interstate common carrier service without the prior consent of the Commission, and/or revocation of 
Telseven’s and Mr. Hines’s authority to operate any business that is subject to the Commission’s 
regulatory jurisdiction under the Act.
V.  ORDERING CLAUSES
34. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,
120
and 
Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
121
Telseven, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT 
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, 
four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,758,465) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the 
Commission’s rules.
  
35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 
within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
Telseven SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeitures or SHALL FILE a written statement 
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeitures.
36. 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 referenced above.  Payments by check or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications 
Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.  Payments by overnight mail may be sent to 
U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 
63101.  Payments by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank 
TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.  An FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be 
submitted with any payments.  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block 
number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code).  
Telseven will also send electronic notification within forty-eight (48) hours of the date said payment is 
made to Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov and Robert.Krinsky@fcc.gov.
37. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeitures, if any, 
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Commission’s rules.
122
  The written statement must be mailed to 
Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12
th
Street, S.W., Room 4-C330, Washington, D.C. 20554 and must 
include the NAL/Account number referenced above.  The written statement should also be e-mailed to 
Theresa Z. Cavanaugh at Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov, Pamela S. Kane at Pamela.Kane@fcc.gov, and 
Robert B. Krinsky at Robert.Krinsky@fcc.gov.
                                                          
120
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
121
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
122
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-62
38. 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.
39. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
under an installment plan should be sent to:  Chief Financial Officer?Financial Operations, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.  20554.
123
  For 
answers to questions regarding payment procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help 
Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or E-mail: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to each of the following:  Telseven, 
LLC, 200 Executive Way, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082; Doreen Abbott, P.O. Box 56257, 
Jacksonville, Florida 32241-6257; Jacob A. Brown, Esq., Akerman Senterfitt, LLP, 50 N. Laura Street, 
Suite 3100, Jacksonville, Florida 32202; Jason B. Burnett, Esq., GrayRobinson, P.A., 50 N. Laura Street, 
Suite 1100, Jacksonville, Florida 32202; and Patrick B. Hines, 350 Ponte Vedra Boulevard, Ponte Vedra 
Beach, Florida 32082-1812.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                          
123
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.