*Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 27845.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 03- 1587 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Pae Tec Communications, Inc. Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IC No. 01- S66203 ORDER Adopted: May 12, 2003 Released: May 15, 2003 By the Acting Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau: 1. In this Order, we consider the complaint filed by Complainant 1 alleging that Pae Tec Communications, Inc. (Pae Tec) changed Complainant’s telecommunications service provider without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainant in violation of the Commission’s rules. 2 We conclude that Pae Tec’s actions did result in an unauthorized change in Complainant’s telecommunications service provider 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 1 Informal Complaint No. IC 01- S66203, filed October 1, 2001. 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 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). 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 03- 1587 2 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 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 October 1, 2001, alleging that Complainant’s telecommunications service had been changed from Teligent to Pae Tec without Complainant’s authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, 11 we notified Pae 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 03- 1587 3 Tec of the complaint and Pae Tec responded on March 7, 2002. 12 Pae Tec has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant’s service provider. The LOA does not state that the subscriber understands that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber’s interstate or interlata preferred interexchange carrier for any one telephone number or that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee will apply to the change in the subscriber’s preferred carrier as required by our rules. 13 We find that Pae Tec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. 14 Therefore, we find that Pae Tec’s actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant’s telecommunications service provider and we discuss Pae Tec’s liability below. 15 5. Pursuant to Section 64.1170( b) our rules, Pae Tec must forward to Complainant’s authorized carrier, Teligent an amount equal to 150% of all charges paid by the subscriber to Pae Tec. 16 Therefore, Pae Tec must forward to Teligent 150% of the amount, along with copies of any telephone bills issued from the company to the Complainant. 17 Within ten days of receipt of this amount, Teligent shall provide a refund or credit to Complainant in the amount of 50% of all charges paid by Complainant to Pae Tec. Complainant has the option of asking Teligent to re-rate Pae Tec’s charges based on Teligent’s rates and, on behalf of Complainant, seek from Pae Tec, any re- rated amount exceeding 50% of all charges paid by Complainant to Pae Tec. Complainant’s must also send a notice to the Commission, referencing this Order, stating that is has given a refund or credit to Complainant. 18 If Teligent has not received the reimbursement required from Pae Tec within 45 days of the release of this Order, Teligent must notify the Commission and Complainant accordingly. Complainant also must notify the Complainant of his or her right to pursue a claim against Pae Tec for a refund of all charges paid to Pae Tec. 19 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the 12 Pae Tac Communications, Inc. ’s Response to Informal Complaint No. IC 01- S66203, filed March 7, 2002. 13 See 47 C. F. R. § 64.1130( e)( 4),( 5). 14 See 47 C. F. R. § 64.1150( d). 15 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. 16 47 C. F. R. § 64.1170( b). 17 Id. 18 See 47 C. F. R. § 64.1170( c). 19 See 47 C. F. R. § 64.1170( e). 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 03- 1587 4 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 Pae Tec Communications, Inc. IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 64.1170( b) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. § 64.1170( b), that Pae Tec must forward to Teligent an amount equal to 150% of all charges paid by the subscriber along with copies of any telephone bills issued from the company to the Complainant within ten (10) days of the release of this order. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nancy A. Stevenson, Acting Deputy Chief Policy Division Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau 4