Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Optic Internet Protocol, Inc.
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-TCD-13-00011384
NAL/Acct. No.:  201432170009  
FRN:  0017134933  
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  July 11, 2014             Released:  July 14, 2014
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We propose a penalty of $7,620,000 against Optic Internet Protocol, Inc. (Optic or 
Company) for switching consumers’ preferred long distance carriers without their authorization 
(commonly known as “slamming”) and placing unauthorized or “crammed” charges for its long distance 
service on consumers’ telephone bills. Consumers insist that Optic’s charges were unauthorized because 
they had no contact with Optic before the Company began charging them for its service. Instead, Optic 
relied on apparently fabricated audio recordings as purported proof that consumers had authorized the 
Company to switch their long distance carriers and to charge them for service, and then provided those 
fabricated recordings to the Commission, consumers, and state regulatory officials to try to show that the 
consumers had authorized its service. 
2. Slamming and cramming are deceptive business practices.  Companies that engage in 
these practices prey on the likelihood that consumers will fail to notice unauthorized charges on their 
multi-page telephone bills.  This risk increases as more consumers are encouraged to enroll in paperless 
billing and to set up automatic payment plans for their telephone bills.  Consumers proceed to pay the bill, 
often unaware that it contains unauthorized charges from an entity other than their own telephone 
company. Here, the harm Optic caused was even more egregious because it apparently relied on falsified
evidence of consumers’ authorizations and caused consumers to expend significant time and effort to 
attempt to return to their preferred carriers, to get the charges removed from their bills, and to file 
complaints with law enforcement agencies.  The Commission is committed to protecting consumers 
against slamming and cramming and will take aggressive action against carriers that perpetrate such 
unjust, unreasonable, and deceptive acts. Based on the evidence before us, including over 150 consumer 
complaints that demonstrate that Optic’s misconduct was widespread and intentional, we propose a 
$7,620,000 forfeiture.
II. BACKGROUND
3. Optic is an interexchange carrier
1
that is authorized to provide telecommunications 
                                                     
1
Optic’s offices are located at 3050 Royal Blvd., S., #175, Alpharetta, GA 30022.  Optic’s President is Gregory 
Allpow. See Letter from Michael S. Welsh, Counsel for Optic Internet Protocol, Inc., to Kimberly A. Wild, Deputy 
Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau at 13 (Nov. 30, 2013) (on file 
in EB-TCD-13-00011384) (LOI Response).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
2
service in 12 states,
2
and in 2013 it billed between 41,000 and 68,000 consumers each month for that 
service.
3
  Optic hires a telemarketing company, Nexophone, to market its service to new customers,
4
and 
contends that it contracts with All Verified to verify and record a consumer’s authorization to “switch 
long distance service providers to Optic.”
5
  Optic stated that it sends new customer orders to its 
underlying carrier Qwest,
6
which submits the carrier change request to the consumer’s local exchange 
carrier (LEC). Generally, a reseller such as Optic does not provide proof of consumer authorization when 
it submits a carrier change request or any other charge to be billed to the consumer, and the LECs do not 
require it.
7
  
4. The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) reviewed more than 150 complaints against Optic that consumers filed with the 
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), various state regulatory agencies,
8
and the Better 
Business Bureau (BBB).
9
  All complainants contend that Optic charged them for long distance service 
without their authorization.  No complainant indicated that he or she had contact with Optic or a 
Company agent before being charged for Optic’s service; most affirmatively assert that they had never 
heard of or spoken to the Company before discovering Optic’s charges on their local telephone bills.
10
  
Many consumers also state that they attempted to have the charges removed, only to see them reappear 
month after month.  In some cases, Optic agreed to refund only a portion of the fees it charged to the 
consumers.  Still others claim that when they contacted Optic, they were told that they or someone in their 
household had authorized Optic’s service, and that Optic possessed an audio recording evidencing the 
authorization.  Consumer complainants who heard these recordings contend that they are fabricated.  
5. Based on complaints alleging that Optic had fraudulently charged consumers for long 
distance service, the Bureau initiated an investigation of Optic and issued a letter of inquiry (LOI) to the 
Company on September 26, 2013.
11
  The LOI sought information about Optic’s practices and instructed 
                                                     
2
See Streamlined International Applications Accepted for Filing, Report No. TEL-01211S, Public Notice, 2007 WL 
4225067, at *2 (Nov. 20, 2007); see also LOI Response at 3.  According to Optic’s 499 filing, however, the 
Company offers domestic and international long distance service in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and 
certain U.S. territories.
3
LOI Response at Exhibit A.
4
Id. at 7.  Optic provides its telemarketers with sales scripts to sell one of three different long distance calling plans.  
For each plan, Optic charges consumers a $3.95 or $4.95 one-time set up fee and a second monthly service fee of 
$4.95, $8.95, or $29.95.  Id. at 4, 7. 
5
LOI Response at 7.  
6
Although Optic identified Qwest as its underlying carrier, some consumer telephone bills identified WorldCom as 
the underlying carrier from which Optic purchased the service.
7
See Main Street Telephone Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 8853, 8854, para. 4 
(2011) (Main Street NAL).
8
With its LOI Response, Optic provided complaints that consumers had filed against Optic with the Public Utility 
Commission of Texas (TX PUC) and the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.  The Bureau obtained additional 
complaints from the TX PUC that Optic failed to provide; the Company stated that it was its practice “to delete 
records of TX PUC complaints once those were resolved to the satisfaction of the PUC.”  See E-mail from Michael 
S. Welsh, Counsel for Optic Internet Protocol, Inc., to Erica H. McMahon, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications 
Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 9, 2014, 15:27 EDT) (on file in EB-TCD-13-00011384) 
(Second Supplemental LOI Response).
9
See consumer complaints on file in EB-TCD-13-00011384.
10
Optic contracts with a billing aggregator, ILD Teleservices, Inc. (ILD), to bill consumers’ local exchange carriers 
for Optic’s service.  LOI Response at 4.  ILD’s name generally appears on the bills, along with Optic’s.
11
See Letter from Richard A. Hindman, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement
Bureau, to Optic Internet Protocol, Inc., Attn: Greg Allpow (Sept. 26, 2013) (on file in EB-TCD-13-00011384) 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
3
the Company to produce various documents and records.  Optic initially responded to the LOI on 
December 2, 2013, and it later supplemented that response.
12
III. DISCUSSION
6. We find that Optic apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 201(b) and 258
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),
13
and Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s 
rules.
14
  Specifically, we find that Optic apparently violated Section 201(b) of the Act by placing 
unauthorized charges on consumers’ local telephone bills.  In some of those cases, Optic also violated
Section 258 by switching consumers’ preferred long distance carrier without authorization verified in 
compliance with the Commission’s verification procedures. In addition, we find that Optic apparently 
violated Section 201(b) when it submitted fabricated audio “verification” recordings to the Commission,
consumers, and state regulatory authorities as evidence of consumers’ authorization to switch their 
carriers and to be charged for service when, in fact, consumers had never spoken to Optic or agreed to its 
service.  Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $7,620,000 for the apparent violations that occurred 
within the twelve months prior to the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
(NAL).
15
A. Apparent Violations
1. Optic Placed Unauthorized Charges on Consumers’ Telephone Bills in 
Apparent Violation of Section 201(b) (“Cramming”)
7. Section 201(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll charges, practices, 
classifications, and regulations for and in connection with [interstate or foreign] communication service 
[by wire or radio], shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation 
that is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful . . . .”
16
  The Commission has found that 
the inclusion of unauthorized charges and fees on consumers’ telephone bills—known as “cramming”—is 
an “unjust and unreasonable” practice under Section 201(b).
17
  Cramming can occur either when third 
(Continued from previous page)                                                       
(LOI); see also E-mail from Erica H. McMahon, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC 
Enforcement Bureau, to Michael Welsh, Counsel to Optic Internet Protocol, Inc. (Dec. 17, 2013, 16:04 EDT).
12
See LOI Response, supra note 1.  Optic requested, and the Bureau granted, an extension of time until November
15, 2013, to respond to the LOI.  The Bureau granted a second request for an extension until December 2, 2013.  See 
also E-mail from Michael S. Welsh, Counsel for Optic Internet Protocol, Inc., to Erica H. McMahon, Attorney 
Advisor, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 9, 2013, 12:56 EDT) (on file in 
EB-TCD-13-00011384) (Supplemental LOI Response); Second Supplemental LOI Response, supra note 8.   
13
47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 258.
14
47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.
15
The Appendix identifies the 71 complaints, evidencing 81 apparent violations of the Act occurring in the last year 
that underlie the proposed forfeiture.
16
47 U.S.C. § 201(b).
17
Indeed, any assessment of an unauthorized charge on a telephone bill or for a telecommunications service is an 
“unjust and unreasonable” practice under Section 201(b) of the Act.  See, e.g., Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc., 
File No. EB-TCD-13-00011651, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 14-58, 2014 WL 1778549, at *5, 
para. 14 (May 5, 2014) (Central NAL); U.S. Telecom Long Distance, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 823, para. 14 (2014) (USTLD NAL); Consumer Telcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 17196, para. 15 (2013) (CTI NAL); Advantage Telecomms., Inc., Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 6843, 6850, para. 17 (2013) (Advantage NAL); see also Long Distance Direct, 
Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3297, 3302, para. 14 (2000) (LDDI MO&O) (finding that the 
company’s practice of cramming membership and other unauthorized fees on consumer telephone bills was an 
unjust and unreasonable practice in connection with communication services).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
4
parties place unauthorized charges on consumers’ local telephone bills or when carriers place 
unauthorized charges on the telephone bills of their own customers. In either case, any assessment of an 
unauthorized charge on a telephone bill or for a telecommunications service is an “unjust and 
unreasonable” practice under Section 201(b) of the Act.
18
   We find that Optic apparently violated Section 
201(b) by placing unauthorized charges on the telephone bills of 71 consumers, in some cases multiple 
times.
8. Optic provides 1+ dialing long distance service.
19
  For a consumer to use Optic’s service, 
the consumer’s long distance service provider must be switched to Optic so that calls are carried over 
Optic’s network and billed to Optic.
20
If there is no switch, any long distance calls the consumer makes
(by dialing 1 plus the desired ten-digit number) are carried over the consumer’s existing provider’s 
network; the consumer would receive no service from Optic. Based on the evidence, Optic switched
complainants’ long distance carrier (e.g., AT&T, Verizon, or CenturyLink) to Optic in some cases and in 
others it did not.
21
  Either way, Optic billed the consumers for long distance service by placing charges for 
its set-up fee and recurring monthly fee on their local telephone bills.
9. All of the consumers whose complaints the Bureau reviewed maintain that whether or not 
Optic switched their carrier, they neither requested nor agreed to Optic’s service.
22
  In fact, most contend 
that they had never heard of Optic before discovering the charges on their phone bills, and had taken no 
action to change their telephone service.
23
Not one complainant describes having had any contact with an 
Optic representative prior to being billed by the Company.  For example, Complainant Hernandez, who 
identified a $4.95 charge from Optic that appeared on his monthly telephone bill for ten months stated:
I have no knowledge of what this company does, but we certainly are receiving 
no benefit from them.  I know that neither my wife nor I authorized it and we 
have no idea who they are.  We only answer the phone when we recognize the 
telephone number as being from family and friends so we know we did not 
respond to any solicitation.
24
  
Complainant De Leon, whose service Optic switched, also complained: “I can confirm that no one from 
Optic (a company I had never heard of before this fiasco) or a 3
rd
party verifier had contacted me, spoke 
with me or recorded me authorizing any long distance switch.”
25
  She added, “I am the only person living 
in this household; no other person (adult or child) could have authorized a long distance switch.  There 
                                                     
18
See, e.g., Central NAL, 2014 WL 1778549, at *5, para. 14. 
19
Such service allows a consumer to make long distance calls by dialing “1” plus the area code and local telephone 
number of the person the consumer wishes to call.  Using “1+” dialing is also referred to as “direct-dialing” because 
once a customer chooses to presubscribe to an interexchange carrier (IXC), the consumer’s calls are directly routed 
to and billed by that IXC.
20
In the case of a switchless reseller such as Optic, the calls would actually be carried over the network of Optic’s 
underlying carrier, Qwest or Worldcom, which would then charge Optic for the service.
21
In some cases, there is no evidence that Optic submitted a request to the LEC to change the consumer’s carrier, 
and in other cases it appears the LEC did not switch the consumer’s carrier because he or she had a preferred or 
presubscribed interexchange carrier (PIC) freeze.  A PIC freeze “prevents a change in a subscriber’s preferred 
carrier selection unless the subscriber gives the carrier from whom the freeze was requested his or her express 
consent.”  47 C.F.R. § 64.1190(a).
22
See, e.g., Complaints from R. Duran; C. Castro; M. Chavez; C. Caballero; M. Lopez; C. Lara-Arreola; R. 
Godines; J. Rosas; A. Ramirez; J. Alcazar.
23
See, e.g., Complaints from R. Espinosa; P. Bianchi; T. Guzman.
24
Complaint from J. Hernandez.
25
Complaint from C. De Leon.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
5
were also no handymen, visitors, friends or other persons in my home during this time who could have 
provided authorization . . . .” Moreover, a significant number of complainants stated that they do not 
have or need long distance service on their landline telephone.  They opted instead to have basic local 
service, wireless, or internet service only.
26
  Complainant Mendez, for example, explained that “[t]he only 
reason why I have a number is for the internet.  There is no handset connected to the phone jack.”
27
  
Complainant Ochoa stated that he uses his cell phone for all long distance calls and needs AT&T for his 
local service only.
28
10. Optic admits that it has received complaints from consumers alleging that Optic never 
contacted them before the Company charged them for its service.
29
In response to such complaints, Optic 
apparently did nothing to ensure that its telemarketers and verification company were appropriately 
marketing Optic’s service and obtaining consumers’ authorization before signing them up for the 
Company’s service. Rather, Optic stated that when it received such complaints, it simply closed the 
customers’ accounts and refunded the fees billed to the customers in full.  Specifically, it said that “no 
further services were provided or billed to that customer . . . . Everyone who has complained has 
immediately been cancelled out of Optic’s system and given a full refund with no questions asked and no 
additional action needed.”
30
  
11. Consumers, however, state otherwise. Upon discovering the unauthorized charges from 
Optic on their telephone bills, many complainants contacted the LEC that issued the bill (in most cases 
AT&T) to dispute the charges.  Although the charges were reversed in some cases, many consumers 
contend that they continued to be charged for one or more months after they complained.  Other 
complainants state that they contacted Optic or its billing aggregator, ILD Teleservices, Inc. (ILD),
numerous times to try to stop the charges.
31
  Complainant Anaya complained:
I have never authorized ILD Teleservices [on behalf of Optic] to provide long 
distance service for me, yet I continue to have recurring charges of $4.95/month 
for services.  I have spoken to ILD . . . on numerous occasions, and have 
questioned their unauthorized billing . . . It seems like a never-ending cycle, 
every month I receive my telephone bill and there again appear these 
unauthorized charges from ILD.
32
  
Complainant Dominguez similarly explained:
                                                     
26
See, e.g., Complaints from L. Von Elling; M. Ruiz; L. Ochoa; R. Vieto; J. Garcia (stating “[s]ince we started with 
AT&T of Texas back in 2007, we only apply for local service only period!”); Complaint from A. Gardea (explaining 
“I am the legal representative for A. Gardea . . . I set her up on an unlimited LOCAL phone plan with AT&T.  
Beginning the next month Optic Internet Protocol-LD started charging her account for long distance service, which 
was never authorized.  She doesn’t make long distance calls—that’s why I set her up on a local plan.”); Complaint 
from J. Molinar (stating “[i]t’s not possible that I have long distance telephone service of any type because I only 
contracted basic service with AT&T company with only local calls or service, without long distance service, without 
long distance calls.”).
27
Complaint from A. Mendez.  See also Complaint from P. McNallen (stating that his DSL line was charged by 
Optic even though he used it only for internet service).
28
Complaint from L. Ochoa.
29
LOI Response at 10.
30
Id.
31
See, e.g., Complaints from A. Ariza; R. Duran; C. Giron; D. Cross; O. Lopez; M. Lopez; C. Lara-Arreola; R. 
Gutierrez; U. Hernandez; J. Hernandez; J. Castillo; R. Vieto.
32
Complaint from A. Anaya.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
6
[Optic] has been cramming a charge on my AT&T bill since March 2013.  I do 
not have long distance service on my landline.  This is definitely unauthorized, so 
every month I have to call them, and call AT&T to reverse the charges.  AT&T 
even volunteered several times to block access to my account by this company.  
Apparently that hasn’t worked.  AT&T just keeps adding on the charges . . . .
33
  
12. Although complainants disputed Optic’s charges, some paid them fearing that their 
telephone service would be disconnected or their credit affected.
34
  Complainant Garcia, who initially 
refused to pay the monthly charges from Optic said, “I receive[d] a notice from AT&T of Texas [about] 
disconnecting the phone service if I didn’t pay $62.66 [so] I did pay that amount plus the $37.75 for local 
service which I have only with AT&T of Texas.”
35
  Complainants spent considerable time and effort 
trying to stop Optic from billing them.
36
  Some were further harmed when they learned they could not 
return to the calling plans they previously had with their preferred carriers before Optic switched them.  
Complainant D. Castello, for instance, tried to reestablish long distance service with Verizon but was 
advised that the Verizon Freedom Price Guarantee Plan was no longer offered and that she had to choose 
a different plan, which was 50 percent more expensive.
37
       
13. Based on this evidence, we conclude that Optic failed to obtain complainants’ 
authorization to charge them for its service. Therefore, we find that Optic, in apparent violation of 
Section 201(b) of the Act, repeatedly placed charges on consumers’ telephone bills without their 
authorization.  
2. Optic Provided Fabricated Audio Recordings to the Commission, 
Consumers, and States in Apparent Violation of Section 201(b)
14. We find that Optic apparently violated Section 201(b) by engaging in deceptive practices 
when signing up and charging consumers for its service.  Specifically, Optic relied on fabricated audio
recordings associated with its “customers” and submitted them to the Commission, consumers, and states 
to make it appear as if the consumers had authorized Optic to be their preferred carrier and thus, to charge 
them for service—when in fact they had not. The Commission has found that such deceptive, fraudulent 
practices are unjust and unreasonable practices that apparently violate Section 201(b) of the Act.
38
                                                     
33
Complaint from D. Dominguez.
34
See, e.g., Complaint from M. Chavez; Complaint from C. Acosta (stating that AT&T agreed to place her account 
“in dispute” while it attempted to seek reimbursement from Optic for the charges).
35
Complaint from J. Garcia.  See also Complaint from R. Duran (explaining “I want to have my money back since I 
have been paying to have my credit protected but enough is enough.  I want my money back, the cancellation of that 
fraudulent charge and for the FCC to check on the business practices of this company.”).
36
See, e.g., Complaint from U. Hernandez (stating that “[f]or at least a year AT&T has allowed [Optic] to bill me 
for a service that I did not request.  When I call them they credit my bill on the next bill but then charge me again.  I 
am so tired of this and am seriously considering canceling all business with AT&T”); Complaint from T. Guzman 
(complaining “When you call the number provided (800 433-4518) you get a recorded message to try back some 
other time.”); Complaint from A. Ramirez (stating “I tried in vain to acquire a contact number for this company but 
could not find any information on them and they did not put a contact number on my AT&T statement.”).
37
Complaint from D. Castello.  See also Complaint from N. Homedes (explaining that she had an AT&T plan that 
allowed her to make unlimited calls to Spain on weekends for $19.95.  After Optic switched her long distance carrier 
without her authorization, she was later reinstated with AT&T; however, “[AT&T] did not grandfather me under my 
old program, so [AT&T] charged me over $5 per each minute I called Spain … for a total of $2,147.25… so ILD 
has caused me quite a bit of financial harm….”). 
38
See United Telecom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 16499, 16503, para. 11 (2012) 
(United NAL) (finding a carrier in apparent violation of Section 201(b) for fabricating TPV recordings). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
7
15. Several consumers who filed complaints with the Public Utility Commission of Texas 
listened to the recordings that Optic had provided to the agency as proof of consumer authorization, and 
stated that the voice they heard on the recordings was not their own, and that they did not otherwise have 
any conversation with Optic’s third-party verifier.
39
16. Following up on the consumers’ allegations, Bureau staff contacted a dozen additional 
complainants about the recordings Optic had provided to the Public Utility Commission of Texas as 
evidence that consumers had authorized Optic to switch their long distance carrier and to charge them for 
service.  Eleven complainants listened to the recordings, and each one adamantly denied that the voice on 
the recording was that of the subscriber to the number.
40
In fact, none of the complainants recognized the 
voice on the recording or indicated that they had authorized any other person to switch their long distance 
carrier.  Complainant Ramirez emailed the Bureau after listening to the recording:
Please be informed that this audio is bogus[.] First I never speak to anyone on 
the phone that I do not know and I do not have conversations in Spanish . . . This 
company created this alleged conversation illegally.  No telling who is 
responding to these questions, probably one of their own employees.
41
  
Complainant De Leon, after listening to Optic’s recording also confirmed, “[t]he voice is definitely not 
mine . . . I never had such a conversation with anyone regarding switching my long distance service.”
42
  
In addition, De Leon said the person who claimed to be Ms. De Leon on the recording provided a maiden 
name that was incorrect.  Similarly, Complainants Mr. and Mrs. Salinas maintained that the recording had 
been fabricated, that the voice on the recording was not Mr. Salinas’s, and that the birthdate the person 
provided was not his.
43
  Further supporting her contention that she did not speak with an Optic 
representative, Mrs. Salinas told Bureau staff that she and her husband are in their 70s, retired, and never 
answer the phone if they do not recognize the number on the Caller ID.  They also stated that their 
Spanish is not good, and if they had spoken with Optic’s verifier, they would not have been able to 
understand the questions he was asking in Spanish.  All of the complainants whom Bureau staff contacted 
and who listened to the recordings that Optic had provided as purported “proof” of their authorization to 
switch carriers insisted that Optic’s recordings had been falsified, and that they had not spoken with 
Optic. There is simply no evidence that Optic contacted complainants or anyone else the complainants 
knew and recorded their authorization to switch the complainant’s carrier.
44
  Nevertheless, Optic relied on
                                                     
39
The Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Optic alleging that the Company billed Illinois residents for 
service by falsifying their authorization.  Specifically, the suit alleged the Company made fraudulent audio 
recordings in which the voice on the recording was not the consumer’s or the name on the recording did not match 
the consumer’s name.  See Illinois Attorney General Press Release, Madigan Sues Company for Long Distance 
Phone Scam, (Aug. 30, 2013), available at
http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2013_08/20130830.html.  In March 2014, Illinois and Optic 
agreed to settle the matter.  See Illinois v. Optic Internet Protocol, Inc., Final Judgment & Consent Decree, No. 
2013-CH-843 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Mar. 11, 2014).
40
In two of the 11 cases, the complainants filed complaints on behalf of their elderly mothers, and those 
complainants confirmed that the voice on the recordings was not that of their mother’s.  The twelfth consumer 
contacted by the Bureau elected not to listen to the recording.  
41
See E-mail from A. Ramirez to Erica McMahon, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement 
Bureau (Mar. 11, 2014, 13:08 EDT).
42
E-mail from C. De Leon to Erica McMahon, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau 
(Mar. 10, 2014; 23:08 EDT). 
43
Complaint from A. Salinas.
44
Optic indicated that it has used an independent third party verification company, All Verified, to verify and record 
each customer’s authorization.  LOI Response at 7.  While it is unclear whether All Verified or Optic itself falsified 
the audio recordings, Optic affirmatively relied on these recordings to show that it had authorization to charge 
consumers for service.  Optic continued to do so even after it had received numerous complaints over the course of 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
8
apparently fabricated audio recordings and presented them to consumers and regulatory authorities as 
evidence that the Company did not slam or cram consumers.
45
17. Based on this evidence, we conclude that Optic or its agent,
46
in apparent violation of 
Section 201(b) of the Act, falsified audio “verification” recordings in order to provide the façade of 
genuine consumer authorization for Optic’s service. 
3. Optic Switched Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers Unlawfully in Apparent 
Violation of Section 258 (“Slamming”)
18. Optic apparently violated Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the 
Commission’s rules by switching 10 consumers’ long distance carriers without authorization.  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 verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.”
47
  Section 64.1120 of 
the Commission’s rules prohibits carriers from submitting a request to change a consumer’s preferred 
provider of telecommunications services before obtaining authorization from the consumer; carriers can 
verify that authorization in one of three specified ways, including third party verification (TPV).
48
  If a 
carrier relies on TPV, the independent verifiers must, among other things, confirm that the consumers 
with whom they are speaking: (i) have the authority to change the carrier associated with their telephone 
number; (ii) in fact wish to change carriers; and (iii) understand that they are authorizing a carrier 
change.
49
  
19. The Commission has made clear that a carrier that engages in an initial “slam” that leads 
to a subsequent cram violates Section 201(b) of the Act for the cram, and Section 258 of the Act for the 
slam.
50
  Under the circumstances here, we charge Optic with both apparent violations.
51
  As the evidence 
discussed above shows, Optic apparently failed to speak with the complainants, obtain their authorization 
(Continued from previous page)                                                       
more than a year from consumers who alleged they had no contact with Optic, had never heard of Optic, and had not 
authorized the Company’s service.  Optic was therefore on notice that an ongoing problem existed, yet it took no 
action to correct the fraudulent behavior or terminate its relationship with its third party verifier.  See, e.g., Silv 
Commc’n Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 5178, 5181–5182, paras. 6–7 (Silv NAL) 
(finding that the carrier was on notice of a problem with its third party telemarketers based on complaints it received 
from consumers).  Instead, Optic continued to rely on fabricated recordings.       
45
We warn carriers that we may also pursue apparent violations of Section 1.17 of the Commission’s rules where a 
carrier provides falsified audio recordings, or otherwise misleads or provides false information, to the Commission 
in any investigatory or adjudicatory matter within its jurisdiction.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.17.   
46
See 47 U.S.C. § 217.  Section 217 imposes liability on a carrier for the acts and omissions of its agents simply if 
those agents act within the scope of their employment; a carrier’s knowledge of its agents’ misdeeds is not required.  
See, e.g., Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 16489, 16491, 
para. 6 (2012) (finding a carrier apparently liable for deceptive marketing practices of the third party telemarketers).  
In any event, Optic has not claimed or produced any evidence that it was unaware of its third party verifier’s actions 
or that the Company should not be held responsible for those actions.  See Silv NAL, 25 FCC Rcd at 5185, para. 14.     
47
47 U.S.C. § 258(a).     
48
47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(1)–(3) (a carrier may also verify authorization by obtaining the subscriber’s written or 
electronically signed authorization in a format that meets the requirements of Section 64.1130 or by obtaining 
confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders 
electronically).
49
47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
50
See Advantage NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 6850, n.48.  
51
See USTLD NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 835–836, para. 24, n.93 (stating that the Commission can charge the carrier with 
violations for cramming and slamming); CTI NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 17208, para. 26, n.78 (same).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
9
to switch carriers, or even attempt to comply with the Commission’s verification procedures; it simply 
fabricated audio recordings to mislead consumers and regulatory officials into believing that it had 
received the consumers’ authorizations.  We therefore find that Optic apparently violated Section 258 of 
the Act and Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules by switching 10 consumers’ preferred providers 
of telecommunications services without proper authorization verified in accordance with the 
Commission’s rules.  
B. Proposed Forfeiture
20. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act states 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.
52
  Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act empowers the 
Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000 for any violation by Optic occurring before 
September 13, 2013, and $160,000 for any violations occurring on or after that date.
53
  In exercising our 
forfeiture authority, we are required to take into account “the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of 
the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, 
ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”
54
  In addition, the Commission has 
established forfeiture guidelines, which set forth base penalties for certain violations and identify criteria 
that we consider in exercising our discretion in determining the penalties to apply in any given case.
55
  
Under the guidelines, we may adjust a forfeiture upward for violations that are egregious, intentional, or 
repeated, or that cause substantial harm or generate substantial economic gain for the violator.
56
  
21. The Commission’s forfeiture guidelines currently establish a base forfeiture amount of 
$40,000 for violations of our slamming rules and orders.
57
  Although the guidelines provide no base 
forfeiture for cramming, the Commission has established through case law a base forfeiture of $40,000 
for cramming violations.
58
Applying the $40,000 base forfeiture to each of the 10 slamming violations
59
                                                     
52
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1).  
53
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2).  These amounts reflect inflation adjustments to the 
forfeitures specified in Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act ($100,000 per violation or per day of a continuing violation 
and $1,000,000 per any single act or failure to act).  The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 
Pub. L. No. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA), requires the Commission to adjust its forfeiture penalties periodically for 
inflation.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note (4).  The Commission most recently adjusted its penalties to account for 
inflation in 2013.  See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary 
Penalties to Reflect Inflation, 28 FCC Rcd 10785 (Enf. Bur. 2013); see also Inflation Adjustment of Monetary 
Penalties, 78 Fed. Reg. 49370–01 (2013) (setting Sept. 13, 2013, as the effective date for the increases).  Because 
the DCIA specifies that any inflationary adjustment “shall apply only to violations which occur after the date the 
increase takes effect,” however, we apply the forfeiture penalties in effect at the time the violation took place.  28 
U.S.C. § 2461 note (6).  
54
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); see also The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 
1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100–01, para. 27 (1997).
55
47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8), Note to paragraph (b)(8). 
56
Id.
57
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, Appendix A, Section I. 
58
See LDDI MO&O, 15 FCC Rcd at 3304, para. 19 (affirming the $40,000 penalty for cramming imposed by the 
Commission in the forfeiture order).
59
A slamming violation occurs whenever a carrier submits an unlawful request to change service providers 
regardless of whether the change actually takes place. See 47 U.S.C. § 258(a) (“[n]o telecommunications carrier 
shall 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 [the Commission’s] verification procedures. . . .”) (emphasis added).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
10
and each of the 71 cramming violations
60
that occurred within the last twelve months would result in a 
forfeiture of $3,240,000.
22. Consistent with prior cramming and slamming enforcement actions that have involved 
evidence of deceptive marketing or fabricated recordings of consumer authorization,
61
we upwardly adjust 
the penalty for the apparent slamming and cramming violations at issue here that are coupled with direct 
evidence of such misconduct.  Specifically, we propose an additional $80,000 penalty for each of the 11
apparent slamming or cramming violations that occurred in the past 12 months and for which Optic or its 
agent apparently fabricated an authorization recording.  The subtotal for this adjustment is $880,000.  
23. Given the facts presented here, we believe that a further upward adjustment is warranted.  
Optic apparently engaged in cramming repeatedly: we have reviewed more than 150 complaints, 
including the 71 identified in the Appendix, by consumers alleging that Optic charged them for its service 
without authorization, and in many cases did so over the course of several months.
62
  Moreover, the 
record shows that Optic’s conduct was egregious.  The Company apparently fabricated verification 
recordings and submitted them to the Commission, consumers, and state regulatory authorities in 
response to complaints from consumers alleging that Optic had either slammed or crammed them.  
Indeed, there is no evidence in the record to show that Optic completed a single authentic verification
recording for any of the complainants. Optic also caused substantial and continuing harm to consumers.  
As discussed above, for example, Optic’s misconduct caused some consumers thousands of dollars of 
harm.
63
  
24. Under Section 503 and our forfeiture guidelines, we must take into account the egregious 
and repeated nature of Optic’s actions, as well as the substantial harm that the Company caused 
consumers. Given the circumstances here and the extent of Optic’s improper conduct, all in the face of 
the repeated warnings of the Commission that slamming and cramming would not be tolerated,
64
an 
additional upward adjustment of $3,500,000 is appropriate.
65
We thus propose a total forfeiture of 
$7,620,000.
                                                     
60
The Commission has made clear that each unauthorized charge a carrier places on a consumer’s bill—or 
“cram”—constitutes a separate and distinct violation of Section 201(b).  See CTI NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 17208, para. 
26 (citing NOS Commnc’ns, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1833 (2001)).  Based on 
the record in the instant case, we decline to exercise our discretion in that way at this time, but we caution other 
carriers that the Commission is committed to aggressive enforcement of its rules, especially in addressing the 
protections afforded consumers.
61
See Central NAL, 2014 WL 1778549, at *10, para. 26 (proposing an additional $80,000 penalty for violations that 
involved deceptive marketing); USTLD NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 836, para. 25 (same); United NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 
16506, para. 18 (proposing an additional $80,000 penalty for violations that involved fabricated authorization 
recordings).  
62
Although the Bureau’s investigation uncovered no direct evidence that Optic targeted any particular group of 
consumers, we note that the overwhelming majority of the complainants have Spanish surnames and many of the 
apparently fabricated consumer authorizations were in Spanish.
63
See supra note 37.
64
See, e.g., Central NAL, 2014 WL 1778549, at *11, para. 28; USTLD NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 837, para. 27; 
Advantage NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 6855–56, para. 30; Main Street NAL, 26 FCC Rcd at 8861, para. 24 (stating “we 
may propose more significant forfeitures in the future as high as is necessary, within the range of our statutory 
authority, to ensure that such companies do not charge consumers for unauthorized services.”).
65
The Commission has proposed similar upward adjustments for egregious behavior in recent slamming and 
cramming cases.  See Central NAL, 2014 WL 1778549, at *11, para. 28 (proposing an upward adjustment of 
$1,500,000 to the base forfeiture of $1,960,000); USTLD NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 837, para. 27 (proposing an upward 
adjustment of $2,000,000 to the base forfeiture of $2,480,000); CTI NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 17209, para. 29 (proposing 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
11
IV. CONCLUSION
25. Based on the facts and record before us, we have determined that Optic has apparently 
willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the 
Commission’s rules.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, 
that Optic Internet Protocol, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR 
FORFEITURE in the amount of seven million, six hundred twenty thousand dollars ($7,620,000), for 
willful and repeated violations of Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended,
66
and Section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules.
67
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, Optic Internet Protocol, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or 
SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
28. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or 
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and FRN referenced above.  Optic shall send 
electronic notification of payment to Johnny Drake at johnny.drake@fcc.gov on the date said payment is 
made.  Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be 
submitted.
68
  When completing the FCC Form 159, Optic should enter the Account Number in block 
number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type 
code).  Below are additional instructions Optic should follow based on the form of payment it selects:
? Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the 
Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the 
completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, 
P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. 
Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, 
St. Louis, MO 63101.
? Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving 
bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire 
transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 
159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the 
wire transfer is initiated.
? Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card 
information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to 
authorize the credit card payment.  The completed Form 159 must then be mailed 
to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 
(Continued from previous page)                                                       
an upward adjustment of $1,500,000 to the base forfeiture of $1,560,000).  These prior NALs also included 
additional upward adjustments of $500,000 or $750,000 for targeting elderly consumers.
66
47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 258.
67
47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.
68
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
12
63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox 
#979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief 
Financial Officer — Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12
th
Street, SW, 
Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.
69
  If Optic Internet Protocol, Inc. has questions regarding 
payment procedures, it should contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-
3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.  
29. The response, if any, must be mailed both to the Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12
th
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN:  Enforcement 
Bureau – Telecommunications Consumers Division, and to Richard A. Hindman, Chief, 
Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12
th
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the 
caption.
30. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 
claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-
year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) 
some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial 
status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the 
financial documentation submitted.
31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and First Class Mail to Gregory 
Allpow, Optic Internet Protocol, Inc., 3050 Royal Blvd. S., #175, Alpharetta, GA 30028 and 900 Arnold 
Mill Road, Roswell, GA 30075, and to Michael S. Welsh, Esquire, 3212 Northlake Parkway, P.O. Box 
450586, Atlanta, GA 31145.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                     
69
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-101
13
APPENDIX
Apparent Violations of Sections 258 and 201(b) of the Act
Complainant Date of Carrier Switch 
and/or Date Charge Placed 
on Consumer’s Bill
Violation(s)
1. A. Salinas 7/15/13 Section 201(b) cram; fabricated recording
2. O. Lopez 7/15/13 Section 201(b) cram
3. I. Juarez 7/24/13 Section 201(b) cram
4. M. Lopez 7/25/13 Section 201(b) cram
5. C. Lara Arreola 7/27/13 Section 201(b) cram
6. B. Cortez 8/5/13 Section 201(b) cram
7. D. Perez 8/7/13 Section 201(b) cram
8. F. Herrera 8/11/13 Section 201(b) cram
9. I. Figueroa 8/20/13; 8/11/13
1
Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram
10. J. Hernandez 8/11/13 Section 201(b) cram
11. M. Llanas 8/15/13 Section 201(b) cram
12. L. Lui 8/17/13 Section 201(b) cram
13. L. Von Elling 8/17/13 Section 201(b) cram
14. C. Acosta 8/19/13 Section 201(b) cram
15. P. McNallen 8/19/13 Section 201(b) cram
16. C. Estrada 8/20/13; 11/9/13 Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram
17. C. Hatem 8/21/13 Section 201(b) cram
18. C. Leal 8/25/13 Section 201(b) cram
19. K. Moran 8/27/13 Section 201(b) cram
20. C. Castro 8/29/13 Section 201(b) cram
21. D. Rodriguez 9/1/13 Section 201(b) cram
22. A. Ramirez 9/4/13; 9/23/13 Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram;
fabricated recording
23. N. Mejia 9/5/13 Section 201(b) cram
24. D. Dominguez 9/5/13 Section 201(b) cram
25. J. Alcazar 9/9/13 Section 201(b) cram
26. C. Chavez 9/13/13 Section 201(b) cram
27. M. Flores 9/15/13 Section 201(b) cram
28. R. Vieto 9/15/13; 11/15/13 Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram
29. O. Coronado 9/16/13 Section 201(b) cram
30. A. Hurtado 9/22/13 Section 201(b) cram
31. M. Castillo 9/27/13 Section 201(b) cram
32. R. Godines 9/29/13 Section 201(b) cram
33. D. Castello 10/2/13; 11/16/13 Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram
34. M. Chavez 10/10/13 Section 201(b) cram
35. R. Gutierrez 10/16/13 Section 201(b) cram
36. D. Nguyen/Eva Nail & 
Spa
10/19/13 Section 201(b) cram
37. M. Munoz/Restaurant 
Marla
10/21/13 Section 201(b) cram
                                                     
1
The evidence shows that Optic first crammed the consumer and then unlawfully switched the consumer’s preferred 
long distance carrier.
Federal Communications Commission     FCC 14-101
14
38. C. Guzman 10/21/13; 11/13/13 Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram; 
fabricated recording
39. A. Gardea 10/22/13; 11/21/13 Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram; 
fabricated recording
40. S. Delgado 10/25/13 Section 201(b) cram
41. F. Morales 10/27/13 Section 201(b) cram
42. U. Hernandez 10/27/13 Section 201(b) cram
43. M. Cantu 10/30/13; 11/25/13 Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram; 
fabricated recording
44. A. Gonzalez 11/3/13 Section 201(b) cram
45. J. Ramos 11/4/13 Section 201(b) cram
46. J. Rosas 11/5/13 Section 201(b) cram
47. E. Lara 11/7/13 Section 201(b) cram
48. E. Gonzales 11/7/13 Section 201(b) cram
49. J. Lara 11/7/13 Section 201(b) cram
50. A. Mendez 11/7/13 Section 201(b) cram
51. C. De Leon 11/11/13; 1/13/14 Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram; 
fabricated recording
52. A. Castelan 11/15/13 Section 201(b) cram
53. G. Campos 11/19/13 Section 201(b) cram
54. K. Mayorga 11/21/13 Section 201(b) cram
55. L. Ochoa 11/23/13 Section 201(b) cram
56. J. Hernandez 11/25/13 Section 201(b) cram
57. A. Ramirez 12/6/13; 12/11/13 Section 258 slam; Section 201(b) cram; 
fabricated recording
58. B. Arcela 12/9/13 Section 201(b) cram
59. A. Anaya 12/17/13 Section 201(b) cram; fabricated recording
60. G. Uribarri 12/23/13 Section 201(b) cram; fabricated recording
61. A. Reyes 1/21/14 Section 201(b) cram
62. T. Azcarate 2/7/14 Section 201(b) cram
63. R. Salinas 2/9/14 Section 201(b) cram
64. E. Vazquez 2/10/14 Section 201(b) cram
65. J. Vasquez 2/11/14 Section 201(b) cram
66. T. Guzman 2/13/14 Section 201(b) cram; fabricated recording
67. J. Castillo 2/15/14 Section 201(b) cram
68. J. Gonzalez 2/17/14 Section 201(b) cram
69. H. Gomez 2/25/14 Section 201(b) cram
70. R. Garza 2/25/14 Section 201(b) cram; fabricated recording
71. F. Candal 5/7/14 Section 201(b) cram