2. Background

Decision (D.) 97-12-003 authorized NCT to provide resold interexchange services in California. This Decision also required NCT to bill, collect, and remit several regulatory fees and surcharges (collectively, "fees").

NCT filed A.02-10-007 for authority under § 854(a) to transfer ownership of the company from Kathleen K. Helein to Karyn L. Bartel. There were no protests or other responses. The transfer was implemented without Commission authorization on March 31, 2003.3 The unauthorized transfer of ownership violated § 854(a) which states, in relevant part, as follows:

No person or corporation...shall...acquire, or control...any public utility...doing business in this state without first securing authorization to do so from the commission.

On March 1, 2004, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling that directed NCT to respond to the following inquiry:

Are there any complaints alleging...significant wrongdoing with respect to Ms. Bartel or NCT that have been decided by, or currently pending at...the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), or other state commissions? If so, please identify and describe all such complaints.

NCT's legal counsel, the Helein Law Group, responded as follows on May 13, 2004:

To NCT's knowledge, there have never been any complaints alleging...significant wrongdoing with respect to Ms. Bartel or NCT that have been decided by, nor are currently pending at...the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), or other state commissions.

At the time NCT submitted the above response, NCT was being investigated by the Florida Public Service Commission (Florida PSC) for 42 slamming violations.4 Relevant documents from the Florida PSC are appended to today's Decision. These documents demonstrate that NCT and the Helein Law Group knew when they submitted the above response that NCT was being investigated by the Florida PSC for 42 slamming violations, which collectively constitute significant wrongdoing. Thus, NCT and the Helein Law Group knowingly made a false statement regarding a material fact when they informed the Commission that there were no pending complaints at another state commission alleging significant wrongdoing.

Making a false statement regarding a material fact violates Rule 1. This Rule states, in relevant part, as follows:

Any person who signs a pleading or brief...or transacts business with the Commission, by such act...agrees to comply with the laws of this State...and never to mislead the Commission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. (Emphasis added.)

On December 21, 2004, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling that provided notice of the ALJ's intent to prepare a draft decision that (1) denied A.02-10-007, and (2) fined NCT for violating § 854(a) and Rule 1. The Ruling also invited NCT to respond to the ALJ's Ruling and to request an evidentiary hearing.

NCT filed a response on January 31, 2005, that was prepared by the Helein Law Group. In its response, NCT denied that it made a false statement. NCT claimed that it believed the Florida PSC's investigation was an informal staff inquiry, not a formal complaint alleging significant wrongdoing. NCT also claimed that the Florida PSC's investigation "concerned actions and individuals that have no legal or other relationship to Ms. Bartel or her ownership and operation of NCT." NCT declined to request an evidentiary hearing, but it did request "negotiations...to avoid the expense of further proceedings and to determine a suitable voluntary contribution."

NCT's response on January 31, 2005, contained two false statements. First, the Florida PSC's investigation was not an informal staff inquiry as NCT claimed. Attachment 1 of today's Decision shows that the Florida PSC opened a docket in January 2004 to investigate NCT.5 Attachment 2 shows that the Florida PSC was scheduled to consider at its meeting on May 3, 2004, a staff recommendation to require NCT to pay a fine of $420,000 for slamming. Attachment 3 shows that the Florida PSC deferred its staff's recommendation to a later meeting in response to a written request from the Helein Law Group dated April 29, 2004. 6 These documents demonstrate conclusively that:

(1) The Florida PSC conducted a formal investigation of NCT for slamming. NCT and the Helein Law Group knew on May 13, 2004, that NCT was being formally investigated for slamming;

(2) NCT and the Helein Law Group knowingly made a false statement on May 13, 2004, when they informed the Commission that there were no pending complaints in other jurisdictions alleging significant wrongdoing; and

(3) NCT and the Helein Law Group knowingly made a false statement on January 31, 2005, when they informed the Commission that NCT did not know on May 13, 2004, that NCT was being formally investigated by the Florida PSC.

The second falsehood in NCT's response submitted on January 31, 2005, is the statement therein that the Florida PSC's investigation "concerned actions and individuals that have no legal or other relationship to Ms. Bartel or her ownership and operation of NCT." Attachment 1 of today's Decision shows that the Florida PSC opened a docket in January 2004 for the express purpose of investigating NCT for slamming. NCT was owned by Bartel at the time. Thus, the Florida PSC's investigation concerned actions (i.e., slamming) that were directly related to NCT. Attachment 2 of today's Decision contains a summary of the Florida PSC staff's investigation of NCT. This document repeatedly states that the staff had investigated both NCT and Bartel for slamming. Attachment 3 demonstrates that NCT and the Helein Law Group were aware that NCT and Bartel were being investigated by the Florida PSC for slamming.

On August 1, 2005, CPSD filed a motion for leave to submit a late-filed protest. The motion was granted by the assigned ALJ in a ruling issued on August 3, 2005. CPSD's protest alleges that NCT has engaged in unlawful activities in California, including slamming, cramming,7 failure to pay regulatory fees, and unauthorized transfers of customers.

On September 2, 2005, CPSD submitted a sworn declaration by CPSD staff member James W. Howard. The declaration asserts that:

1. NCT has repeatedly slammed and crammed California consumers. CPSD provided the following information to support its assertion:

a. The Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch (CAB) received 36 informal slamming complaints against NCT in 2003 and 98 informal slamming complaints in 2004.

b. The primary inter-exchange carrier (PIC) reports submitted by SBC California show that SBC received 241 informal slamming complaints against NCT during 2003. This represents a 10% complaint ratio based on the 2,404 PIC changes reported by SBC California for NCT during 2003. SBC California's PIC reports show that NCT did not acquire any new subscribers in 2004.

c. The cramming complaint reports submitted by two billing aggregators (Billing Concepts, Inc. and ILD Telecommunications, Inc.) used by NCT show that these two aggregators received 1,364 informal cramming complaints against NCT during 2003, 4,718 complaints in 2004, and 2,199 complaints through June 30, 2005.

2. NCT failed to remit all regulatory fees. CPSD analyzed the quarterly cramming reports submitted by Billing Concepts and ILD Telecommunications, which summarize the monthly amounts billed for each client. Based on the amounts billed, CPSD determined that NCT should have remitted $266,739 for the period of January 2003 through May 2005. However, Commission records show that NCT's actual remittances for this period were $92,513. CPSD calculated the net regulatory fees owed by NCT is $174,226.

3. NCT accepted the transfer of California long-distance subscribers from the defunct Miko Telephone Communications, Inc. (U-6582-C & U-6792-C) without Commission authorization. This information was obtained via a data response provided by NCT on April 8, 2005.

On September 12, 2005, the Helein Law Group notified CPSD by email that NCT was withdrawing A.02-10-007. The email also denied any wrongdoing, but did not provide any information to refute CPSD's declaration. The email also stated that NCT had ceased marketing as of January 1, 2005, that NCT was going out of business, and that NCT could no longer afford to participate in the instant proceeding or to transfer its customers to another carrier.

CPSD forwarded the Helein Law Group's email to the assigned ALJ. On September 12, 2005, the assigned ALJ notified the Helein Law Group by email that NCT could not unilaterally withdraw A.02-10-007, and that NCT would have submit a formal request to do so. The Helein Law Group responded that it would submit a formal request to withdraw A.02-10-007, but it never did so.

On September 20, 2005, the assigned ALJ notified the parties of the ALJ's intent to prepare a draft decision that: (1) denied A.02-10-007; (2) ordered NCT to transfer its customers to another carrier; (3) ordered NCT to remit past-due regulatory fees, and (4) penalized NCT $50,000 to $100,000 for (i) violating § 854 and Rule 1, (ii) failure to remit regulatory fees, and (iii) the reasons set forth in CPSD's protest. The ALJ also invited the parties to submit comments on the ALJ's proposed course of action and to request an evidentiary hearing.

CPSD filed comments on September 29, 2005, that expressed full support for the ALJ's proposed course of action. NCT did not submit comments.

On October 27, 2005, the Commission issued Resolution T-16962, which revoked the certificates of public convenience and necessity (CPCNs) for three carriers, including NCT, for failure to file an annual report and to remit regulatory fees as required by D.93-05-010, Ordering Paragraph 4.

At the request of the assigned ALJ, the Commission's Telecommunication Division (TD) asked SBC California and Verizon if NCT were still providing service. TD reported that (1) SBC California's records showed that NCT was the designated PIC for 23 lines as of November 15, 2005, and (2) Verizon's records showed that NCT was the designated PIC for 265 lines as of November 23, 2005. Thus, NCT continued to provide service after its CPCN was revoked in October 2005.

A search of the Lexis database revealed that the Florida PSC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have each investigated slamming complaints against NCT. The Florida investigation was described previously. With regards to the FCC, Lexis shows that the FCC has upheld 27 slamming complaints against NCT.8 All of the slamming complaints investigated by the Florida PSC and the FCC occurred after Bartel acquired NCT.

3 Amendment to A.02-10-027 filed on May 13, 2004, p. 2.

4 Slamming is the unauthorized switching of a customer's telephone service provider. Slamming is illegal in California pursuant to § 2889.5.

5 NCT was notified of the Florida PSC docket and was placed on the service list for the docket.

6 On January 26, 2005, the Florida PSC adopted a settlement in which NCT agreed to make a "voluntary contribution" of $151,500 and to implement procedures to prevent slamming.

7 Cramming occurs when customers are billed for telephone services they did not authorize. Cramming is illegal pursuant to § 2890(a).

8 FCC Orders DA 04-803, DA 04-860, DA 04-1461, DA 04-1973, DA 04-2313, DA 04-2618, DA 04-2626, DA 04-2739, DA 04-2834, DA 04-2849, DA 04-3068, DA 04-3073, DA 04-3296, DA 04-3310, DA 04-3366, DA 04-3634, DA 05-209, DA 05-233, DA 05-972, DA 05-979, DA 05-1384, DA 05-1385, DA 05-1411, and DA 05-1418, DA 05-2554, and DA 05-3058.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page