Re: FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[scott]

::  "the Paniolo Cable Company for their interisland fiber network"

I see I wasn't clear.  The Paniolo Cable Company was part of SIC by 
ownership



https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2020/12/01/hawaiian-telcom-to-acquire-fiber-network-paniolo.html

That bankruptcy hearing, meanwhile, comes on the heels of a real estate 
fire-sale consummated on May 18 in which a company controlled by 
disgraced businessman Albert S.N. Hee — which owns one of the three 
undersea cables the entire state depends on for its data services — 
effectively sold parts of itself to another company controlled by the 
same family. The companies in question are Honolulu-based Sandwich Isles 
Communications and Paniolo Cable.



scott

Re: FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[scott]

On 4/23/2021 5:51 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Did the FCC ever collect its $50 million from "Sandwich Isles 
Telecommunications" for blatant fraud?  At this scale I wonder how or 
why certain people are not in federal prison.




Folks did go to prison:


https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30903886/hawaii-telecom-executive-sentenced-to-46-months-behind-bars

"Telecommunications executive Albert Hee was sentenced to 46 months in 
federal prison on Wednesday for tax charges."


"Hee is the younger brother of former state Sen. Clayton Hee and the 
founder of Sandwich Isles Communications."



https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2020/12/01/hawaiian-telcom-to-acquire-fiber-network-paniolo.html

"Hee, brother of former state Sen. Clayton Hee 
, was 
convicted of federal tax fraud 
 
in 2015 and was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and was 
released on Sept. 19, 2019, according to the Bureau of Prisons website."



good details here: 
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/26464/FCC-Fines-Al-Hee-49M-for-Fraud



He cheated folks that don't have much in the first place, so he could 
have millions he didn't deserve.  Ugly person.


We (Hawaiian Telcom) bought the Paniolo Cable Company for their 
interisland fiber network and have been pushing out good internet to the 
far-flung locations.  We have really, really remote locations here.


scott


(paniolo means cowboy in Hawaiian)

Re: FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[Roy]

  
  

  
  There is a difference between fines and ordering restitution.  The FTC case was concerned with
"monetary relief"  The
  FTC and the FCC are allowed to impose civil penalties.
  
  On 4/23/2021 10:29 AM, Matt Erculiani wrote:


  
  > It just got harder for the FTC to fine people


Based on the unanimous US Supreme Court decision, they
  never could in the first place, at least in the particular
  manner that was challenged.


It'll be up to Congress to explicitly define how big the
  FTC's teeth are, not the unelected leadership of a regulatory
  body to decide for themselves. Working as Intended (despite
  the undesirable end result). 


-Matt
  
  
  
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:00
  AM Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:

On
  Apr 23, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:
  > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Dan Hollis wrote:
  >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
  >>> Did the FCC ever collect its $50 million from
  "Sandwich Isles
  >>> Telecommunications" for blatant fraud?  At this
  scale I wonder how or why
  >>> certain people are not in federal prison.
  >> 
  >> FCC is not law enforcement. The FTC can send people
  to prison. The FCC can only send press releases.
  > 
  > Neither FCC nor FTC can send people to prison. Only the
  Department of Justice can criminally prosecute people (or
  corporations, i.e. WORLDCOM, ENRON, etc) in the U.S. Federal
  system.  States and other countries vary.
  > 
  > FCC can deny future licenses and make things difficult
  for long-term carriers. Most scammers declare bankruptcy or
  just never pay.
  > 
  > 
  > https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/fcc-fine-enforcement-scrutiny-216121
  > FCC proposes millions in fines, collects $0
  > November 23, 2015
  
  It just got harder for the FTC to fine people: https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2021/04/22/supreme-court-limits-ftcs-ability-recoup-illgotten-gains
  
  -- 
  TTFN,
  patrick
  

  
  
  
  
  -- 
  
Matt Erculiani
  ERCUL-ARIN

  


  

Re: FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[Matt Erculiani]

> It just got harder for the FTC to fine people

Based on the unanimous US Supreme Court decision, they never could in the
first place, at least in the particular manner that was challenged.

It'll be up to Congress to explicitly define how big the FTC's teeth are,
not the unelected leadership of a regulatory body to decide for themselves.
Working as Intended (despite the undesirable end result).

-Matt

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:00 AM Patrick W. Gilmore 
wrote:

> On Apr 23, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Dan Hollis wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> >>> Did the FCC ever collect its $50 million from "Sandwich Isles
> >>> Telecommunications" for blatant fraud?  At this scale I wonder how or
> why
> >>> certain people are not in federal prison.
> >>
> >> FCC is not law enforcement. The FTC can send people to prison. The FCC
> can only send press releases.
> >
> > Neither FCC nor FTC can send people to prison. Only the Department of
> Justice can criminally prosecute people (or corporations, i.e. WORLDCOM,
> ENRON, etc) in the U.S. Federal system.  States and other countries vary.
> >
> > FCC can deny future licenses and make things difficult for long-term
> carriers. Most scammers declare bankruptcy or just never pay.
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/fcc-fine-enforcement-scrutiny-216121
> > FCC proposes millions in fines, collects $0
> > November 23, 2015
>
> It just got harder for the FTC to fine people:
> https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2021/04/22/supreme-court-limits-ftcs-ability-recoup-illgotten-gains
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>

-- 
Matt Erculiani
ERCUL-ARIN

Re: FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Apr 23, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Dan Hollis wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>> Did the FCC ever collect its $50 million from "Sandwich Isles
>>> Telecommunications" for blatant fraud?  At this scale I wonder how or why
>>> certain people are not in federal prison.
>> 
>> FCC is not law enforcement. The FTC can send people to prison. The FCC can 
>> only send press releases.
> 
> Neither FCC nor FTC can send people to prison. Only the Department of Justice 
> can criminally prosecute people (or corporations, i.e. WORLDCOM, ENRON, etc) 
> in the U.S. Federal system.  States and other countries vary.
> 
> FCC can deny future licenses and make things difficult for long-term 
> carriers. Most scammers declare bankruptcy or just never pay.
> 
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/fcc-fine-enforcement-scrutiny-216121
> FCC proposes millions in fines, collects $0
> November 23, 2015

It just got harder for the FTC to fine people: 
https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2021/04/22/supreme-court-limits-ftcs-ability-recoup-illgotten-gains

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[Sean Donelan]

FCC “fined” robocallers $208 million since 2015 but collected only $6,790
Both FCC and FTC fail to collect vast majority of robocall fines, WSJ 
reports.

March 28, 2019

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fcc-has-fined-robocallers-208-million-its-collected-6-790-11553770803


If your carrier doesn't indpendently verify LOAs, the security of your 
circuits is zip.  Ask your carrier salesperson how they validate LOAs.  If 
they just check a letterhead, tell your carrier salesperson to do better.


When it affects the salesperson's commission, things happen.

Don't depend on the FCC.

Re: FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[Sean Donelan]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Dan Hollis wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

Did the FCC ever collect its $50 million from "Sandwich Isles
Telecommunications" for blatant fraud?  At this scale I wonder how or why
certain people are not in federal prison.


FCC is not law enforcement. The FTC can send people to prison. The FCC can 
only send press releases.


Neither FCC nor FTC can send people to prison. Only the Department of 
Justice can criminally prosecute people (or corporations, i.e. WORLDCOM, 
ENRON, etc) in the U.S. Federal system.  States and other countries vary.


FCC can deny future licenses and make things difficult for long-term 
carriers. Most scammers declare bankruptcy or just never pay.



https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/fcc-fine-enforcement-scrutiny-216121
FCC proposes millions in fines, collects $0
November 23, 2015

Re: FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[Dan Hollis]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

Did the FCC ever collect its $50 million from "Sandwich Isles
Telecommunications" for blatant fraud?  At this scale I wonder how or why
certain people are not in federal prison.


FCC is not law enforcement. The FTC can send people to prison. The FCC can 
only send press releases.


-Dan

Re: FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[Eric Kuhnke]

Did the FCC ever collect its $50 million from "Sandwich Isles
Telecommunications" for blatant fraud?  At this scale I wonder how or why
certain people are not in federal prison.

https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs=fcc+sandwich+isles

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-131A1_Rcd.pdf

V. ORDERING CLAUSES69. Accordingly,IT IS ORDEREDthat Sandwich Isles
Communications, Inc., Waimana Enterprises, Inc., and Albert S.N. Hee,
pursuant to section 220(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
and section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,293ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE
FOR A MONETARY FORFEITUREin the amount of forty-nine million, five hundred
and ninety-eight thousand, and four hundred and forty-eight dollars
($49,598,448) for violating the Act and the Commission’s rules.70. Payment
of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80
of the Commission’s rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the release
of this Forfeiture Order.29

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 8:44 AM Sean Donelan  wrote:

>
> The FCC has a poor record of actually collecting money from Notices of
> Apparent Liability (i.e. fines).  There are flaws in the FCC notification
> rules, but it does have some rules requiring indpendent verification of
> carrier changes.
>
>
>
> FCC Fines Tele Circuit $4,145,000 for Cramming & Slamming Violations
>
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-fines-tele-circuit-4145000-cramming-slamming-violations-0
>
> FCC fines Tele Circuit Network Corporation $4,145,000 for switching
> consumers from their preferred carrier to Tele Circuit without permission
> and adding unauthorized charges to consumers' bill
>
> In this Order, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)
> adopts the findings in the Notice of Apparent Liability (Tele Circuit
> Notice or Notice) that Tele Circuit Network Corporation (Tele Circuit or
> Company) engaged in slamming and cramming, made misrepresentations to
> consumers, and violated a Commission order by failing to produce certain
> information and documents relating to the Company’s business practices.
> The Company’s misconduct  harmed elderly and infirm consumers, in some
> cases leaving them without telephone service for extended periods of
> time—with Tele Circuit refusing to reinstate service until the crammed
> charges were paid in full. These practices violated sections 201(b) and
> 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and section
> 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules. After reviewing Tele Circuit’s response
> to the Notice, we decline to find that the Company violated section
> 1.17(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules and reduce the proposed penalty by
> $1,178,322, and therefore impose a forfeiture of $4,145,000.
>
>
>
> [...]
> In particular, Tele Circuit did not provide proof that the complainants
> listed in the LOI authorized Tele Circuit to switch their long distance
> carrier. In response to the LOI, Tele Circuit did produce some
> third-party verification recordings,31 which are supposed to provide
> evidence that customers assented to changing their long distance service
> from their existing carriers to Tele Circuit. However, some
> complainants who listened to the recordings alleged that the third-party
> verifications were falsified. In all, the Bureau reviewed more than 100
> written consumer complaints, contacted numerous complainants, obtained
> substantial documentary evidence (including copies of consumer telephone
> bills), listened to third-partyverification recordings, and received data
> from consumers’ carriers.
>
> [...]
>   Tele Circuit switched the telephone service of 24 consumers without
> verified authorization to do so, in violation of section 258 of the Act
> and section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules.
>
> [...]
>

FCC fines for unauthorized carrier changes and consumer billing

[Sean Donelan]

The FCC has a poor record of actually collecting money from Notices of 
Apparent Liability (i.e. fines).  There are flaws in the FCC notification 
rules, but it does have some rules requiring indpendent verification of 
carrier changes.




FCC Fines Tele Circuit $4,145,000 for Cramming & Slamming Violations

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-fines-tele-circuit-4145000-cramming-slamming-violations-0

FCC fines Tele Circuit Network Corporation $4,145,000 for switching 
consumers from their preferred carrier to Tele Circuit without permission 
and adding unauthorized charges to consumers' bill


In this Order, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) 
adopts the findings in the Notice of Apparent Liability (Tele Circuit 
Notice or Notice) that Tele Circuit Network Corporation (Tele Circuit or 
Company) engaged in slamming and cramming, made misrepresentations to 
consumers, and violated a Commission order by failing to produce certain 
information and documents relating to the Company’s business practices. 
The Company’s misconduct  harmed elderly and infirm consumers, in some 
cases leaving them without telephone service for extended periods of 
time—with Tele Circuit refusing to reinstate service until the crammed 
charges were paid in full. These practices violated sections 201(b) and 
258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and section
64.1120 of the Commission’s rules. After reviewing Tele Circuit’s response 
to the Notice, we decline to find that the Company violated section 
1.17(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules and reduce the proposed penalty by 
$1,178,322, and therefore impose a forfeiture of $4,145,000.




[...]
In particular, Tele Circuit did not provide proof that the complainants 
listed in the LOI authorized Tele Circuit to switch their long distance 
carrier. In response to the LOI, Tele Circuit did produce some 
third-party verification recordings,31 which are supposed to provide 
evidence that customers assented to changing their long distance service 
from their existing carriers to Tele Circuit. However, some 
complainants who listened to the recordings alleged that the third-party 
verifications were falsified. In all, the Bureau reviewed more than 100 
written consumer complaints, contacted numerous complainants, obtained
substantial documentary evidence (including copies of consumer telephone 
bills), listened to third-partyverification recordings, and received data 
from consumers’ carriers.


[...]
 Tele Circuit switched the telephone service of 24 consumers without 
verified authorization to do so, in violation of section 258 of the Act 
and section 64.1120 of the Commission’s rules.


[...]