Commission Document

• Print
• Email

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-2083

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)
Spectrotel
)
IC No.  09-S0295878
)
Complaint Regarding 
)
Unauthorized Change of
)
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)

ORDER

Adopted:  December 22, 2011

Released:  December 29, 2011

By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1.
In this Order, we consider the complaint filed by Complainant1 alleging that 
Spectrotel changed Complainant’s telecommunications service provider without obtaining 
authorization and verification from Complainant in violation of the Commission’s rules.2 We 
conclude that Spectrotel’s actions violated the Commission’s carrier change rules, and we grant 
Complainant’s complaint.
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 of 
 
 
1
Informal Complaint No. IC 09-S0295878, filed May 17, 2009.  
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 11-2083

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 Complainant’s complaint on May 17, 2009, alleging that 
Complainant’s telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to 
Spectrotel without Complainant’s authorization.  Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our 
rules,11 we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on June 17, 2009.12  
 
 
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
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 11-2083

Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification 
(TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Spectrotel submitted with its response.  The 
Commission’s rules require that if the subscriber has additional questions for the carrier’s sales 
representative during the verification, the verifier shall indicate to the subscriber that, upon 
completion of the verification process, the subscriber will have authorized a carrier change.13  
During the TPV, the person on the call asked, “[c]ould you…?” but the TPV abruptly ended.  
Although the person on the call began to ask a question but was prevented from doing so because 
the TPV was immediately terminated, we find that Spectrotel violated the Commission’s carrier 
change rules and we discuss Spectrotel’s liability below.14
5.
Spectrotel must remove all charges incurred for service provided to Complainant 
for the first thirty days after the alleged unauthorized change in accordance with the 
Commission’s liability rules.15 We have determined that Complainant is entitled to absolution 
for the charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and 
that neither Verizon nor Spectrotel may pursue any collection against Complainant for those 
charges.16 Any charges imposed by Spectrotel on the subscriber for service provided after this 
30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber to Verizon at the rates the subscriber was paying to 
Verizon at the time of the unauthorized change.17
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 complaint filed by 
Complainant against Spectrotel IS 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), Complainant is entitled to absolution for the 
charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and neither 
Spectrotel nor Verizon may pursue any collection against Complainant for those charges.
(Continued from previous page)  
 
 
12
Spectrotel’s Response to Informal Complaint No. 09-S0295878, received June 17, 2009.  
13
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii). 
14
If Complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution of this complaint, 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 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 
Complainant.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.719.
15
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(b).
16
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(d).
17
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160.
3

---

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-2083

8.
IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Nancy A. Stevenson, Deputy Chief
Consumer Policy Division
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
4

---