Commission Document

• Print
• Email

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1255

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)
Preferred Long Distance 
)
IC Nos. 10-R2658295S
)
10-S2726918
Complaints Regarding 
)
11-S3134372
Unauthorized Change of
)
11-S3150573
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
11-S3218915
)
12-S3353014 
 

ORDER

Adopted: August 2, 2012

Released:  August 3, 2012       

By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1.
In this Order, we consider the complaints1 alleging that Preferred Long Distance 
(PLD) changed Complainants’ telecommunications service providers without obtaining 
authorization and verification from Complainants in violation of the Commission’s rules.2 We 
conclude that PLD’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 
“slamming,” the submission or execution of an unauthorized change in a subscriber’s selection 
 
 
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, 
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).

---

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1255

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, 
pursuant to Section 503 of the Act.10
4.
We received Complainants’ complaints alleging that Complainants’ 
telecommunications service providers had been changed to PLD without Complainants’ 
authorization.11 Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules,12 we notified PLD of the 
 
 
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.
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).
2

---

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1255

complaints and PLD responded.13 In its responses, PLD stated that authorization was received 
and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs).  We have reviewed the TPVs PLD filed 
with its responses, and we find that, in each case, PLD’s verifier failed to obtain separate 
authorization for each service being sold, as required by our rules.14 We find that PLD has 
failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by 
Complainant.15 Therefore, we find that PLD’s actions did result in an unauthorized change in 
Complainant’s telecommunications service and we discuss PLD’s liability below.16  
5.
PLD must remove all charges incurred for service provided to Complainants for 
the first thirty days after the alleged unauthorized change in accordance with the Commission’s 
liability rules.17 We have determined that Complainants are entitled to absolution for the charges 
incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized changes occurred and neither the 
authorized carriers nor PLD may pursue any collection against Complainants for those charges.18
Any charges imposed by PLD on the subscriber for service provided after this 30-day period 
shall be paid by the subscribers at the rates the subscribers were paying to their authorized 
carriers at the time of the unauthorized changes.19
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 
PLD, 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 PLD nor the authorized carriers may pursue any collection against Complainants for those 
charges.
 
 
13
See Appendix.
14
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).  
15
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d).
16
If such 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.
17
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(b).
18
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(d).
19
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160.
3

---

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1255

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
4

---

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1255

APPENDIX
INFORMAL
 DATE OF
 DATE OF
AUTHORIZED
COMPLAINT
 COMPLAINT
RESPONSE
CARRIER
NUMBER
10-R2658295S
June 14, 2010
June 25, 2010
AT&T
10-S2726918
July 26, 2010
August 25, 2010
AT&T
11-S3134372
June 3, 2011
July 8, 2011
AT&T
11-S3150573
July 5, 2011
July 22, 2011
AT&T
11-S3218915
July 18, 2011
September 9, 2011
AT&T
12-S3353014
March 19, 2012
April 20, 2012
AT&T
5

---