|
State of Florida
|
Public Service Commission
Capital Circle Office Center ● 2540 Shumard
Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
-M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M-
|
|
DATE:
|
October 24, 2019
|
|
TO:
|
Office of Commission Clerk (Teitzman)
|
|
FROM:
|
Office of the General Counsel
(Dziechciarz)
Office of Industry Development and Market Analysis
(Fogleman, Wendel)
|
|
RE:
|
Docket No. 20190193-TX – Initiation of
show cause proceeding against Tele Circuit Network Corporation for apparent
violation of Order Nos. PSC-05-0361-PAA-TX and PSC-11-0419-PAA-TX.
|
|
AGENDA:
|
11/5/19
– Regular Agenda – Show Cause – Interested Persons May Participate
|
|
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED:
|
All Commissioners
|
|
PREHEARING OFFICER:
|
None
|
|
CRITICAL DATES:
|
None
|
|
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
Case Background
Staff of the
Florida Public Service Commission (Commission) opened this docket to initiate a
show cause proceeding against Tele Circuit Network Corporation (Tele Circuit or
Company) for apparent violation of Commission Order Nos. PSC-05-0361-PAA-TX and
PSC-11-0419-PAA-TX.
Tele Circuit is
a privately-held corporation, incorporated in Georgia, and authorized to
transact business as a foreign corporation in Florida since July 14, 2003. By
Order No. PSC-05-0361-PAA-TX (CLEC Order), issued on April 4, 2005, this
Commission granted Tele Circuit a Competitive Local Exchange Company (CLEC) Certificate,
No. 8573, pursuant to Section 364.335(1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (F.S.). Tele Circuit provides service in BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida
d/b/a AT&T Southeast’s (AT&T) territory as a reseller of AT&T
service.
By Order No. PSC-11-0419-PAA-TX (ETC Order), issued on September 28, 2011, the Commission designated
Tele Circuit as a landline (or “wireline”) Eligible Telecommunications Carrier
(ETC) throughout AT&T’s service territory, pursuant to Chapter 47 Code of
Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Section 54.201(c). In Florida, a
company may receive a wireline ETC designation from the Commission, but must
seek a wireless ETC designation from the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Companies that are designated as ETCs have the ability to receive
Universal Service Fund (USF) support from the Universal Service Administration
Company (USAC) for providing qualifying services from the four major USF
programs: High-Cost, Low-Income
(Lifeline), Rural Health Care, and the Schools and Libraries divisions. USF support is provided to ETCs in the form of monetary
reimbursement.
Tele Circuit’s purpose in seeking its ETC designation was
to receive federal support for offering the Lifeline discount to its low-income
customers. The
Company currently serves approximately 300 customers in the state of Florida,
and claims reimbursement from the USF for 34 of its customers under the Lifeline
program.
On May 16, 2019,
staff received a complaint concerning a customer’s desire to acquire wireline service
under the Lifeline program from Tele Circuit. The customer informed staff that a Tele
Circuit representative stated that the Company is no longer offering wireline
service, but that the customer could instead receive the Lifeline discount if
they used a wireless service.
On May 21, 2019, staff
emailed Tele Circuit to determine if the Company had in fact stopped offering
the Lifeline discount for wireline service, as this is the only type of service
Tele Circuit is authorized to provide pursuant to the ETC Order. Tele Circuit responded
that it was unable to provide new customers with the Lifeline discount using wireline
service due to a technical issue, but that if the customer was willing to use a
wireless phone, the Company would still offer the Lifeline discount after verifying
the customer’s eligibility.
Following additional
conversations with Tele Circuit, staff learned that due to a dispute regarding
overcharges in billing between AT&T and Tele Circuit, the Company was not
able to sell wireline service in Florida to new customers., Staff also confirmed that Tele
Circuit was advertising a “wireless home phone-hub” service to its customers,
and providing new customers who wished to receive the Lifeline discount with
wireless phone service via the phone-hub.
Staff requested a copy of any advertising material
or user manual(s) provided to Tele Circuit customers for the wireless home
phone-hub. The wireless home phone-hub appears to operate on either the Sprint or
Verizon wireless networks, but Tele Circuit apparently believes it qualifies as
wireline service. It is unclear if customers are informed that they are not
receiving wireline service when receiving this technology from Tele Circuit. In
a follow-up response, Tele Circuit stated that only one of its 34 Lifeline customers
in Florida is utilizing the wireless home phone-hub service, and that the
remaining 33 customers are using wireline service.
Tele Circuit further advised staff that the
Company contacted USAC to ensure that use of the wireless home phone-hub technology
was permissible for the Lifeline program. Staff requested the name of the
contact at USAC and any formal documentation of USAC’s approval of the use of
the wireless technology. Tele Circuit informed staff that it did not know the
individual’s name, nor did it receive any formal documentation. Staff contacted USAC to verify the approval of the technology; however,
USAC did not provide any information.
Staff requested additional information from AT&T
and Tele Circuit regarding the nature of the dispute between the companies. AT&T
informed staff that it reached a settlement agreement with Tele Circuit that
dictated that the Company must remove all customers from AT&T lines by
December 31, 2019. AT&T also provided staff with a letter sent by Tele
Circuit to its customers informing them of the Company’s need to migrate its
customers off of its current network.
When staff requested information from Tele Circuit
regarding the dispute, the Company originally stated that the dispute was
resolved, and advised that it was able to provide wireline service to new
customers in Florida. After further inquiry, the Company advised that AT&T and Tele Circuit
were still in negotiations regarding their dispute, but did not advise staff of
the settlement agreement.
Similarly, Tele Circuit provided contradictory
responses to staff regarding its current bankruptcy status. In a response to a
data request regarding the 2019 Status of Competition in the Telecommunications
Industry Report, Tele Circuit
advised that it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2018. However, in a data request response
regarding the Commission’s annual Lifeline Assistance Report, Tele Circuit failed to state that it had filed for bankruptcy within the
last year.
Tele Circuit also stated in its data request response that it was not involved in any FCC enforcement actions
within the last two years. However, during the course of the informal
investigation into Tele Circuit’s provision of wireless service for its
Lifeline customers, staff discovered a Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (NAL), issued by the FCC on April 27, 2018, which the Company should
have disclosed.
In the NAL, the
FCC proposed that the Company pay a $5.3
million fine due to the egregious nature of Tele Circuit’s apparent misconduct,
which involved the deceptive practices commonly referred to as “slamming” and
“cramming.” Slamming refers to the practice of changing a customer’s preferred
service provider without proper authorization, and cramming refers to the
practice of placing unauthorized charges for long distance service on a
customer’s bill. Slamming and cramming cause consumers to spend significant
time and effort to return to their preferred carriers, to remove unauthorized
charges from their bills, and to file complaints with law enforcement agencies.
Notably, the FCC stated that:
In some instances, the apparent misconduct of Tele Circuit
left vulnerable consumers without telephone service for extended periods of
time – with Tele Circuit allegedly refusing to reinstate service until the
crammed charges were paid in full. Further, it appears that some of the
third-party verification recordings that Tele Circuit provided to the
Commission as “evidence” of consumer authorization were fabricated.
The FCC emphasized how Tele
Circuit’s apparent misconduct caused “great consternation among these victims
and their family members, and created dangerous or potentially life-threatening
situations.”
In one example, the complainant alleged that Tele Circuit persuaded a 94-year
old customer to switch carriers to Tele Circuit, and then cut off service
before the elderly customer’s guardian knew the service had been switched. The
complainant noted that “[t]his is the only way she or her caregivers can
contact me or anyone in case of an emergency.”
Another complainant alleged that
Tele Circuit wrongfully switched her mother’s service, and ultimately disconnected
her. When the complainant requested to listen to the recording of her mother
allegedly authorizing Tele Circuit’s carrier switch, the Company could not
provide it. She stated that “[a]s of right now my mother is without a phone and
if anything happens to her, she can’t even dial 911 because she has no service
at all ... [i]t’s sad that these companies prey on the elderly.”
Staff contacted the FCC to determine if there was any settlement or additional
actions that resulted from the NAL, but has not received any additional
information to date.
Given the serious nature of the
allegations that the FCC presented against Tele Circuit, the Company’s apparent
inability to provide staff with consistent and accurate information, and its
prohibited use of wireless technology for Lifeline customers, staff determined
that it appears that Tele Circuit was in violation of its ETC Order and CLEC
Order. Issue 1 is staff’s recommendation regarding Tele Circuit’s apparent
violation of its ETC Order, for use of non-compliant wireless technology
for its Lifeline customers, and because it is no longer in the public interest for
Tele Circuit to be designated as an ETC. Issue 2 is
staff’s recommendation regarding Tele Circuit’s apparent violation of its CLEC Order,
due to insufficient managerial capability to provide
CLEC service in Florida.
The procedure followed by the Commission in dockets such
as this is to consider the Commission staff’s recommendation and determine
whether the alleged facts warrant requiring the entity to respond. If the Commission agrees with staff’s
recommendation, the Commission issues an Order to Show Cause (Show Cause
Order). A Show Cause Order is considered
an administrative complaint by the Commission against the entity, pursuant to
Section 120.60(5), F.S. If the
Commission issues a Show Cause Order for Issue 1, then to keep its ETC
designation in the state of Florida, Tele Circuit would have to provide a
response to the Commission within 21 days, which disputes the factual
allegations contained in the Show Cause Order, and contains a request for a
hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. If the Company requests a
hearing, a further proceeding would be scheduled before the Commission makes a
final determination on the matter.
If the Commission issues a Show Cause Order for Issue 2,
then to keep its CLEC Certificate, Tele Circuit would have to provide a
response to the Commission within 21 days which disputes the factual
allegations contained in the Show Cause Order, and contains a request for a
hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. If the Company requests a
hearing, a further proceeding would be scheduled before the Commission makes a
final determination on the matter.
If Tele Circuit fails to timely respond to the Show Cause
Order, then it would be deemed to have admitted the factual allegations
contained in the Show Cause Order. The Company’s
failure to timely respond would also constitute a waiver of its right to a
hearing. If the Company does not timely
respond, a final order would be issued imposing the sanctions set out in the Show
Cause Order.
If a final order is issued regarding Issue 1, then Tele
Circuit’s ETC status would be revoked in the state of Florida, and the Company would
no longer be able to offer the Lifeline discount to its customers in Florida.
Tele Circuit would also be prohibited from receiving monetary support from the
USF for its Lifeline customers in Florida. Tele Circuit submitted an
application to the FCC for wireless ETC status on July 6, 2012; however, the
application is still pending. If approved, Tele Circuit would be permitted to
provide wireless Lifeline service (including in Florida), and again receive
support from the USF. If a final order is issued regarding Issue 2, then Tele
Circuit’s CLEC certificate would be revoked, and the Company would no longer be
able to provide any wireline service in the state of Florida.
The Commission has jurisdiction
pursuant to Sections 364.10(2), 364.285, and 364.335, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission order Tele Circuit to show
cause, in writing, within 21 days from the issuance of the order, why its Eligible
Telecommunications Carrier status in Florida should not be revoked for apparent
violation of Order No. PSC-11-0419-PAA-TX, due to use of non-compliant wireless
technology for its Lifeline customers, and because it is no longer in the
public interest for Tele Circuit to be designated as an ETC?
Recommendation:
Yes, Tele Circuit Network Corporation should be
ordered to show cause, in writing, within 21 days from the issuance of the
order, why its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier status in Florida should not
be revoked for apparent violation of Order No. PSC-11-0419-PAA-TX, due
to use of non-compliant wireless technology for its Lifeline customers, and
because it is no longer in the public interest for Tele Circuit to be
designated as an ETC. (Dziechciarz, Fogleman, Wendel)
Staff Analysis:
Law
State commissions have the primary responsibility for
performing ETC designations. In the state of Florida, the Commission has the
jurisdiction to designate wireline, but not wireless, ETCs. 47
C.F.R. Section 54.201(c), provides that:
Upon request and consistent with the public interest,
convenience, and necessity, the state commission may, in the case of an area
served by a rural telephone company, and shall, in the case of all other areas,
designate more than one common carrier as an eligible telecommunications
carrier for a service area designated by the state commission, so long as each
additional requesting carrier meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section. Before designating an additional eligible telecommunications carrier
for an area served by a rural telephone company, the state commission shall
find that the designation is in the public interest.
47 C.F.R. Section 54.201(d), provides that carriers
designated as ETCs shall, throughout the designated service area: (1) offer the
services that are supported by federal universal support mechanisms whether
using their own facilities or a combination of their own facilities and the
resale of another carrier’s services, and (2) advertise the availability of
such services and related charges therefore using media of general
distribution.
In addition to the responsibility for performing wireline
ETC designations, the Commission also possesses the authority to revoke ETC
designations for the failure of an ETC’s compliance with any conditions imposed
by the state. The FCC
has found that individual state commissions are qualified to determine what
information is necessary to ensure that ETCs are in compliance with applicable
requirements, including state-specific ETC eligibility requirements.
Pursuant to Section 364.285(1),
F.S., the Commission may impose upon any entity subject to its jurisdiction a
penalty of not more than $25,000 for each such day a violation continues, if
such entity is found to have refused to comply with or to have willfully
violated any lawful rule or order of the Commission, or any provision of
Chapter 364, F.S. Each day a violation continues is treated as a separate
offense. Each penalty is a lien upon the real and personal property of the
entity and is enforceable by the Commission as a statutory lien.
As an alternative to
the above monetary penalties, Section 364.285(1), F.S., provides that the
Commission may amend, suspend, or revoke any certificate issued by the
Commission for any such violation. Part of the determination the
Commission must make in evaluating whether and how to penalize a company is
whether the company willfully violated the order, rule, or statute. Section 364.285(1), F.S., does not define what it is to
“willfully violate” an order, rule, or statute. Willfulness is a question of
fact.[27] The plain meaning of "willful"
typically applied by the Courts in the absence of a statutory definition, is an act or omission that is done
“voluntarily and intentionally” with specific intent and “purpose to violate or
disregard the requirements of the law.”
“It is a common maxim, familiar to all minds that
‘ignorance of the law’ will not excuse any person, either civilly or
criminally.” In
making similar decisions, the Commission has repeatedly held that certificated
companies are charged with the
knowledge of the Commission’s orders, rules, and statutes, and that the intent
of Section 364.285(1) is to penalize those who affirmatively act in opposition
to those orders, rules, or statutes.[30]
In other words, a company cannot excuse its violation because it “did not
know.”
In recommending a monetary penalty or a form of
certificate suspension or revocation, staff reviews prior Commission orders.
While Section 364.285(1), F.S., treats each day of each violation as a separate
offense with penalties of up to $25,000 per offense, staff believes that the
general purpose of imposing monetary penalties is to obtain compliance with the
Commission’s orders, rules, or statutes.
If a company has a pattern of noncompliance with an order, rule, or statute, or
in particular if the violation of an order, rule, or statute adversely impacts
the public health, safety, or welfare, then staff believes that a monetary
penalty may not be appropriate or suffice to address the situation. In such a
case, staff believes that the sanction should be the most severe. In this
docket, staff’s informal investigation revealed that Tele Circuit appears to be
using non-compliant wireless technology to claim reimbursement for its Lifeline
customers. This is in direct violation of Order No. PSC-11-0419-PAA-TX.
Therefore, staff believes that it is no longer in the public interest for Tele
Circuit to be designated as an ETC, and staff is recommending the penalty of
revoking Tele Circuit’s ETC designation.
Factual Allegations
As a wireline ETC in Florida, Tele Circuit may only claim
Lifeline support for customers receiving wireline telecommunications service.
As noted in the Case Background, on May 21, 2019, staff learned that Tele
Circuit appears to be providing wireless technology to new Lifeline customers.
Telecommunications carriers may provide their customers with service using any underlying
technology they see fit; however, with respect to customers participating in
the Lifeline program, Tele Circuit is only authorized in Florida to provide
wireline service in order to receive access to the monies available via the
USF. Staff’s analysis indicates that Tele Circuit appears to be intentionally
claiming reimbursement from USAC for Florida Lifeline customers using wireless
technology, and staff recommends that Tele Circuit’s ETC designation be revoked
for this abuse of the USF.
In addition, staff learned that a condition of the dispute
resolution between Tele Circuit and AT&T is that Tele Circuit must migrate
its end-users off of the AT&T network by December 31, 2019. It appears to
staff that Tele Circuit plans to migrate all of its Lifeline customers to the
non-compliant wireless technology, as Tele Circuit does not have any pending
request to interconnect with a different wireline carrier in AT&T’s service
territory. Therefore, it appears that Tele Circuit’s intentional non-compliance
will only be exacerbated in 2020, and potentially in perpetuity thereafter
unless the Commission or USAC take action.
Further, Tele Circuit’s ETC designation was granted by
this Commission as being in the public interest, and upon a showing that the
Company was committed to abide by both state and federal rules and procedures.
In light of the FCC’s NAL, staff believes that it is no longer in the public interest
for Tele Circuit to keep its ETC designation. In fact, staff believes it would
be in the public interest to revoke Tele Circuit’s ETC designation, since this
would be one less avenue for the company to use to prey on low-income and
elderly customers.
Conclusion
It appears that Tele Circuit is
intentionally providing Lifeline customers with wireless technology, in direct
violation of its ETC Order. Tele Circuit also appears to be intentionally
engaging in deceptive, and in some instances dangerous, business activity,
which is contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, staff recommends that
the Commission order Tele Circuit to show cause, in writing, within 21 days
from the issuance of the order, why its ETC designation should not be revoked
for apparent violation of Commission Order No. PSC-11-0419-PAA-TX, due to use
of non-compliant wireless technology for its Lifeline customers, and because it
is no longer in the public interest for Tele Circuit to be designated as an ETC.
Staff recommends that the order incorporate the following
conditions:
1.
This Show Cause Order is an administrative complaint by
the Florida Public Service Commission, as petitioner, against Tele Circuit
Network Corporation, as respondent.
2.
Tele Circuit shall respond to the Show Cause Order
within 21 days of service on the Company, and the response shall reference Docket
No. 20190193-TX, Initiation of show cause proceeding against Tele Circuit
Network Corporation for apparent violation of Order Nos. PSC-05-0361-PAA-TX and
PSC-11-0419-PAA-TX.
3.
Tele Circuit has the right to request a hearing to be
conducted in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., and to be
represented by counsel or other qualified representative.
4.
Requests for hearing shall comply with Rule
28-106.2015, F.A.C.
5.
Tele Circuit’s response to the show cause order shall identify
those material facts that are in dispute.
If there are none, the petition must so indicate.
6.
If Tele Circuit files a timely written response and
makes a request for a hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., a
further proceeding will be scheduled before a final determination of this
matter is made.
7.
A failure to file a timely written response to the Show
Cause Order will constitute an admission of the facts alleged herein, and a
waiver of the right to a hearing on this issue.
8.
If Tele Circuit fails to file a timely response, then
staff will contact USAC and obtain the names and addresses of the Company’s
current Lifeline customers in Florida. Staff will send a letter to the Lifeline
customers that explains which carriers remain authorized to provide the
Lifeline discount in their area.
In the event that Tele Circuit fails to file a timely
response to the Show Cause Order, the Company’s ETC status will be deemed
revoked, and a final order would be issued. Any customers who wish to continue
to receive the Lifeline discount would have to find a new carrier that is
designated as either a wireline or wireless ETC.
Issue 2: Should Tele Circuit Network Corporation be ordered to show
cause, in writing, within 21 days from the issuance of the order, why its Competitive
Local Exchange Certificate, No. 8573, should not be revoked for apparent
violation of Commission Order No. PSC-05-0361-PAA-TX, for insufficient
managerial capability to provide Competitive Local Exchange Certificate service
in Florida?
Recommendation:
Yes. Tele Circuit Network Corporation should be
ordered to show cause, in writing, within 21 days from the issuance of the
order, why its Competitive Local Exchange Certificate, No. 8573, should not be
revoked for apparent violation of Commission Order No. PSC-05-0361-PAA-TX, for
insufficient managerial capability to provide Competitive Local Exchange
Certificate service in Florida.
(Dziechciarz, Fogleman, Wendel)
Staff Analysis:
Law
Tele Circuit’s CLEC application was granted upon a showing
that the company had “sufficient technical, financial, and managerial
capability to provide such [CLEC] service,” pursuant to Section 364.335(2),
F.S. Section
364.335(2), F.S., provides that:
The [C]ommission shall grant a certificate of
authority to provide telecommunications service upon a showing that the
applicant has sufficient technical, financial, and managerial capability to
provide such service in the geographic area proposed to be served. The
applicant shall ensure continued compliance with applicable business formation,
registration, and taxation provisions of law.
Pursuant to Section 364.285(1),
F.S., the Commission may impose upon any entity subject to its jurisdiction a
penalty of not more than $25,000 for each such day a violation continues, if
such entity is found to have refused to comply with or to have willfully
violated any lawful rule or order of the Commission, or any provision of
Chapter 364, F.S. Each day a violation continues is treated as a separate
offense. Each penalty is a lien upon the real and personal property of the
entity and is enforceable by the Commission as a statutory lien.
As an alternative to
the above monetary penalties, Section 364.285(1), F.S., provides that the
Commission may amend, suspend, or revoke any certificate issued by the
Commission for any such violation. Part of the determination the
Commission must make in evaluating whether and how to penalize a company is
whether the company willfully violated the order, rule, or statute. Section 364.285(1), F.S., does not define what it is to
“willfully violate” an order, rule, or statute. Willfulness is a question of
fact.[34] The plain meaning of "willful"
typically applied by the Courts in the absence of a statutory definition, is an act or omission that is done
“voluntarily and intentionally” with specific intent and “purpose to violate or
disregard the requirements of the law.”
“It is a common maxim, familiar to all minds that
‘ignorance of the law’ will not excuse any person, either civilly or
criminally.” In
making similar decisions, the Commission has repeatedly held that certificated
companies are charged with the
knowledge of the Commission’s orders, rules, and statutes, and that the intent
of Section 364.285(1) is to penalize those who affirmatively act in opposition
to those orders, rules, or statutes.[37]
In other words, a company cannot excuse its violation because it “did not
know.”
In recommending a monetary penalty or a form of
certificate suspension or revocation, staff reviews prior Commission orders.
While Section 364.285(1), F.S., treats each day of each violation as a separate
offense with penalties of up to $25,000 per offense, staff believes that the
general purpose of imposing monetary penalties is to obtain compliance with the
Commission’s orders, rules, or statutes.
If a company has a pattern of
noncompliance with an order, rule, or statute, or in particular if the violation
of an order, rule, or statute adversely impacts the public health, safety, or
welfare, then staff believes that a monetary penalty may not be appropriate or
suffice to address the situation. In such a case, staff believes that the
sanction should be the most severe. In this docket, staff’s informal
investigation revealed that Tele Circuit appears to be using non-compliant
wireless technology to claim reimbursement for its Lifeline customers, that it
is no longer in the public interest for Tele Circuit to be designated as an
ETC, and that Tele Circuit no longer possesses sufficient managerial
capabilities to provide CLEC service in Florida; therefore, staff is
recommending the most severe penalty which is revocation of Tele Circuit’s CLEC
Certificate.
Factual Allegations
As indicated in the Case Background, Tele Circuit does not
appear to possess sufficient managerial capability to provide CLEC service to
customers in the state of Florida. Throughout the course of staff’s informal
investigation, Tele Circuit was unable to provide clear, consistent, and
accurate responses to staff’s data requests.
Tele Circuit appears to believe it is in compliance with its ETC Order by utilizing
wireless technology, even though its ETC designation is for wireline only.
Staff also notes that the company has an “F” rating on the Better Business
Bureau website, and continues to receive complaints of slamming, cramming, and
other misleading and deceptive marketing practices.
Additionally, staff believes that
the allegations set forth in the FCC’s NAL are of such a serious nature as to
question Tele Circuit’s managerial capabilities. As indicated in the Case
Background, the allegations against Tele Circuit are egregious. Multiple
complainants expressed anger and frustration against the Company for misleading
and defrauding a particularly vulnerable portion of the population – those who are
elderly and in need of low-income assistance. Further, the FCC found that Tele
Circuit not only apparently willfully and repeatedly violated FCC rules related
to slamming and cramming, but also fabricated evidence in an attempt to prove
Tele Circuit’s compliance with the FCC’s rules.
These edited tapes have been played for some complainants, who stated that
either the recording was not their voice, or the questions being asked were not
the same as the original phone call. During the course of the FCC’s
investigation, Tele Circuit issued general denials of wrongdoing, but did not
attempt to refute specific allegations made by consumers, nor did the Company
specifically refute the allegations of evidence fabrication. Staff believes
that Tele Circuit’s apparent willingness to fabricate third party verification
tapes, or at best its ambivalence toward such a charge, shows not only a lack
of managerial capability to halt employee misconduct, but also suggests that
Tele Circuit management may be engaged in willfully deceiving customers and
regulators as a method of profit-seeking.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, staff
believes that Tele Circuit no longer possesses the managerial capability to
ensure that the Company will conduct business in a manner compliant with
federal and state orders, rules, and statutes, and is therefore in violation of
its CLEC Order. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Commission order Tele
Circuit to show cause, in writing, within 21 days from the issuance of the
order, why its Competitive Local Exchange Certificate, No. 8573, should not be
revoked for apparent violation of Commission Order No. PSC-05-0361-PAA-TX, for
insufficient managerial capability to provide CLEC service in Florida.
Staff recommends that the order incorporate the following
conditions:
1.
This Show Cause Order is an administrative complaint by
the Florida Public Service Commission, as petitioner, against Tele Circuit
Network Corporation, as respondent.
2.
Tele Circuit shall respond to the Show Cause Order
within 21 days of service on the Company, and the response shall reference Docket
No. 20190193-TX, Initiation of show cause proceeding against Tele Circuit
Network Corporation for apparent violation of Order Nos. PSC-05-0361-PAA-TX and
PSC-11-0419-PAA-TX.
3.
Tele Circuit has the right to request a hearing to be conducted
in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., and to be represented by
counsel or other qualified representative.
4.
Requests for hearing shall comply with Rule
28-106.2015, F.A.C.
5.
Tele Circuit’s response to the show cause order shall
identify those material facts that are in dispute. If there are none, the petition must so
indicate.
6.
If Tele Circuit files a timely written response and
makes a request for a hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., a
further proceeding will be scheduled before a final determination of this
matter is made.
7.
A failure to file a timely written response to the Show
Cause Order will constitute an admission of the facts alleged herein, and a
waiver of the right to a hearing on this issue.
In the event that Tele Circuit fails to file a timely
response to the Show Cause Order, the Company’s CLEC Certificate, No. 8573, would
be deemed revoked, and a final order would be issued. Tele Circuit would be
required to pay any outstanding Regulatory Assessment Fees pursuant to Rule
25-4.0161, F.A.C. Any
current wireline customers of Tele Circuit would have to find a new wireline
service provider, or switch to wireless service.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
If the Commission orders Tele Circuit to show cause
as to Issues 1 and/or 2, and Tele Circuit timely responds in writing to the
Show Cause Order, this docket should remain open to allow for the appropriate processing
of the response. If the Commission orders Tele Circuit to show cause as to
Issues 1 and/or 2, and Tele Circuit does not timely respond to the Show Cause
Order, then the Commission should issue a Final Order, and this docket should
be closed after the time for filing an appeal has run. If the Commission does
not order Tele Circuit to show cause as to Issues 1 and 2, then this docket should
be closed. (Dziechciarz)
Staff Analysis:
If the Commission orders Tele Circuit to show cause
as to Issues 1 and/or 2, and Tele Circuit timely responds in writing to the
Show Cause Order, this docket should remain open to allow for the appropriate
processing of the response. If the Commission orders Tele Circuit to show cause
as to Issues 1 and/or 2, and Tele Circuit does not timely respond to the Show
Cause Order, then the Commission should issue a Final Order, and this docket
should be closed after the time for filing an appeal has run. If the Commission
does not order Tele Circuit to show cause as to Issues 1 and 2, then this
docket should be closed.
