*Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 12749.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2596 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of AT& T Corporation Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IC Nos. 01- S43279 01- S48014 01- S52097 ORDER Adopted: November 7, 2001 Released: November 9, 2001 By the Chief, Consumer Information Network Division, Consumer Information Bureau: 1. In this Order, we consider three complaints 1 alleging that AT& T Corporation (AT& T) changed Complainants’ service providers without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainants in violation of the Commission’s rules. 2 For the reasons discussed below, we deny the 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 A. 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); reconsideration pending. 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 (continued….) 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2596 2 “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 authorization; (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 4. We received Complainants’ complaint alleging that Complainants’ service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to AT& T without Complainants’ authorization. 10 Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, 11 we notified AT& T of the (Continued from previous page) 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. 10 See Appendix A . 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 01- 2596 3 complaints and AT& T responded. 12 With respect to each of the complaints, AT& T denies that it changed the complainant’s service without the requisite authorization and provided evidence of a third party verification process which AT& T states confirms the Complainants’ authorization to change to AT& T. Upon review of the information provided in AT& T’s response, we find that AT& T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid carrier change on response to each of the complaints. 13 5. 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 above referenced complaints filed against AT& T Corporation ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jack L. Forsythe, Chief Consumer Information Network Division Consumer Information Bureau 12 See Appendix A. 13 See 47 C. F. R. § 64.1150( d). 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2596 4 APPENDIX A INFORMAL COMPLAINT DATE OF COMPLAINT DATE OF CARRIER NUMBER RESPONSE 01- S43279 February 12, 2001 April 3, 2001 01- S48014 March 13, 2001 April 27, 2001 01- S52097 April 24, 2001 June 14, 2001 4