Commission Document

• Print
• Email

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-72

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)
Advantage Telecommunications Corporation
)
IC Nos. 11-S3260185
)
12-S003329
Complaints Regarding 
)
12-S003394
Unauthorized Change of
)
12-S003404
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
12-S003487
)
12-S3321933
)
12-S3352925
)
12-S3359518
)
12-S3367252
)
12-S3368371
)
  12-S3384503
)
12-S3385055
)
12-S3399214
)
12-S3436983
)
12-S3469071
)
12-S3486645          
 

ORDER

Adopted:  January 17, 2013

Released:  January 18, 2013  

By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1.
In this Order, we consider the complaints1 alleging that Advantage 
Telecommunications Corporation (Advantage) changed Complainants’ telecommunications 
service providers without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainants in 
violation of the Commission’s rules.2 We conclude that Advantage’s actions did result in 
unauthorized changes in Complainants’ telecommunications service providers and we grant 
Complainants’ complaints.
2.
In December 1998, the Commission released the Section 258 Order in which it 
adopted rules to implement Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended 
by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act).3 Section 258 prohibits the practice of 
 
 
1
See Appendix.
2
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100 – 64.1190.
3
47 U.S.C. § 258(a); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996); 
Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-
129, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (Section 258 
Order), stayed in part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999); First Order on 
Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158 (2000); stay lifted, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 

---

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-72

“slamming,” the submission or execution of an unauthorized change in a subscriber’s selection 
of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service.4 In the Section 258 Order, 
the Commission adopted aggressive new rules designed to take the profit out of slamming, 
broadened the scope of the slamming rules to encompass all carriers, and modified its existing 
requirements for the authorization and verification of preferred carrier changes.  The rules 
require, among other things, that a carrier receive individual subscriber consent before a carrier 
change may occur.5 Pursuant to Section 258, carriers are absolutely barred from changing a 
customer's preferred local or long distance carrier without first complying with one of the 
Commission's verification procedures.6 Specifically, a carrier must:  (1) obtain the subscriber's 
written or electronically signed authorization in a format that meets the requirements of 
Section 64.1130; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided 
exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; or (3) utilize an independent 
third party to verify the subscriber's order.7
3.
The Commission also has adopted liability rules.  These rules require the carrier 
to absolve the subscriber where the subscriber has not paid his or her bill.  In that context, if the 
subscriber has not already paid charges to the unauthorized carrier, the subscriber is absolved of 
liability for charges imposed by the unauthorized carrier for service provided during the first 30 
days after the unauthorized change.8 Where the subscriber has paid charges to the unauthorized 
carrier, the Commission’s rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges 
to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of 
all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier.9 Carriers should note that our 
actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, 
 
 
 
 
 
2000); Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996 (2000), Errata, DA No. 
00-2163 (rel. Sept. 25, 2000), Erratum, DA No. 00-2192 (rel. Oct. 4, 2000), Order, FCC 01-67 (rel. Feb. 22, 2001); 
Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 5099 (2003); 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 10997 (2003); Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 493 (2008).  Prior to the adoption of 
Section 258, the Commission had taken various steps to address the slamming problem.  See, e.g., Policies and 
Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Report 
and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995), stayed in part, 11 FCC Rcd 856 (1995); Policies and Rules Concerning 
Changing Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 91-64, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992), reconsideration denied, 8 FCC 
Rcd 3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs, CC Docket No. 83-1145, Phase I, 101 
F.C.C.2d 911, 101 F.C.C.2d 935, reconsideration denied, 102 F.C.C.2d 503 (1985).
4
47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
5
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.
6
47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
7
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c).  Section 64.1130 details the requirements for letter of agency form 
and content for written or electronically signed authorizations.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1130.
8
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160. Any charges imposed by the unauthorized carrier on the 
subscriber for service provided after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber to the authorized carrier at 
the rates the subscriber was paying to the authorized carrier at the time of the unauthorized change. Id.
9
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1170.
2

---

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-72

pursuant to Section 503 of the Act.10
4.
We received Complainants’ complaints alleging that Complainants’ 
telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants’ authorization.11  
Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules,12 we notified Advantage of the complaints 
and Advantage responded.13 Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed 
through third party verifications (TPV) in each case.  The Commission’s rules require that the 
verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is “authorized to 
make the carrier change.” 14 We have reviewed the TPVs that Advantage submitted with its 
responses.  In each case, the verifier instead asks the person on the call, “Are you authorized by 
the telephone account owner to make changes to and incur charges on this telephone account?” 
A switch from one carrier to another carrier differs from merely making changes to the 
customer’s service.15 As we emphasized in the Fourth Report and Order, “any description of the 
carrier change transaction…must not be misleading” and verifiers should convey explicitly that 
“the consumers will have authorized a carrier change, and not for instance an upgrade in existing 
service.”16 We find that Advantage’s actions were in violation of our carrier change rules, and 
we discuss Advantage’s liability below.17
5.
Advantage must remove all charges incurred for service provided to 
Complainants for the first thirty days after the alleged unauthorized changes in accordance with 
the Commission’s liability rules.18 We have determined that Complainants are entitled to 
absolution for the charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized changes 
occurred and that neither the Complainants’ authorized carrier nor Advantage may pursue any 
collection against Complainants for those charges.19 Any charges imposed by Advantage on the 
 
 
10
See 47 U.S.C. § 503.
11
See Appendix.
12
47 C.F.R. § 1.719 (Commission procedure for informal complaints filed pursuant to Section 258 
of the Act); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150 (procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in preferred carrier).
13
See Appendix.
14
See 47 C.F. R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
15
Cf. Consumer Telcom, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 5340 (CGB 2012) (“the 
verifier’s question, “Do you have authority to make changes to your long distance service?” did not confirm that 
the person was authorizing a change that would result in receiving service from a different carrier”).
16
See Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 493 (2008)(emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R.     
§ 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
17
If any Complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution of this complaint, such Complainant may 
file a formal complaint with the Commission pursuant to Section 1.721 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
1.721.  Such filing will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of such Complainant’s informal complaint so 
long as the formal complaint is filed within 45 days from the date this order is mailed or delivered electronically to 
such Complainant.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.719.
18
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(b).
19
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(d).
3

---

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-72

subscribers for service provided after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscribers to their 
authorized carrier at the rates the subscribers were paying to their authorized carriers at the time 
of the unauthorized changes of telecommunications service providers.20  
6.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 
1.719 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaints filed against 
Advantage, ARE GRANTED. 
7.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 64.1170(d) of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1170(d), Complainants are entitled to absolution for the 
charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and neither 
the Advantage nor the authorized carriers may pursue any collection against Complainants for 
those charges.
8.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Nancy A. Stevenson, Deputy Chief
Consumer Policy Division
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
 
 
20
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160.
4

---

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-72

APPENDIX 
INFORMAL
DATE OF
 
 
 DATE OF
COMPLAINT
 
COMPLAINT
 
RESPONSE
NUMBER
11-S3260185        
October 24, 2011
November 25, 2011
12-S003329
February 5, 2012
March 12, 2012
12-S003394
April 25, 2012
June 1, 2012
12-S003404
May 3, 2012
June 8, 2012
12-S003487
August 16, 2012
September 21, 2012
12-S3321933
February 6, 2012
March 15, 2012
12-S3352925
March 15, 2012
June 1, 2012
12-S3359518
March 19, 2012
April 27. 2012
12-S3367252
April 11, 2012
May 8, 2012
12-S3368371
March 26, 2012
May 8, 2012
12-S3384503
April 25, 2012
June 1, 2012
12-S3385055
May 1, 2012
June 8, 2012
12-S3399214
May 8, 2012
June 22, 2012
12-S3436983
July 12, 2012
July 26, 2012
12-S3469071
July 14, 2012
October 19, 2012
12-S3486645
October 1, 2012
November 2, 2012
5

---