*Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 31735* Federal Communications Commission DA 03- 2995 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of WorldCom, Inc. Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 02- B0009428 02- B0011355 02- B0011838 02- F0002499 02- P31311 02- S76448 02- S79108 02- S81918 02- S81921 03- I0025135 03- I0026316 03- I0029354 ORDER Adopted: September 29, 2003 Released: October 1, 2003 By the Acting Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau: 1. In this Order, we consider the complaint 1 alleging that WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) changed complainants’ telecommunications service providers without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainants in violation of the Commission’s rules. 2 We conclude that WorldCom’s actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants’ telecommunications service providers and we deny 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 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, (continued….) 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 03- 2995 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 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 (Continued from previous page) 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). 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. 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 03- 2995 3 4. We received Complainants’ complaints alleging that Complainants’ telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants’ authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, 11 we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. 12 We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. 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 complaints filed by Complainants against WorldCom ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nancy A. Stevenson, Acting Deputy Chief Policy Division Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau 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). 12 See Appendix A. 13 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 Complainants’ 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. 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 03- 2995 4 APPENDIX A INFORMAL COMPLAINT NUMBER COMPLAINANT( S) DATE OF COMPLAINT DATE OF CARRIER RESPONSE 02- B0009428 Sherry Morgan o/ b/ o Melvina Crecelius October 10, 2002 January 16, 2003 02- B0011335 Robert Thomas October 10, 2002 May 1, 2003 02- B0011838 Tim Currell October 10, 2002 February 27, 2003 02- F0002499 Frederick Cutlip August 1, 2002 January 7, 2003 02- P31311 Dorothy Farley April 24, 2002 October 2, 2002 02- S76448 Rose Rolden June 10, 2002 December 4, 2002 02- S79108 Carita Chiles- Fuller April 10, 2002 December 6, 2002 S81918 Mamie L. Gates-02- Reynolds December 18, 2002 February 20, 2003 02- S81921 Martha Orlowski December 18, 2002 February 13, 2003 03- I0025135 Frieda Heaps January 28, 2003 June 10, 2003 03- I0026316 Anthony Divito January 29, 2003 May 6, 2003 03- I0029354 Merie Labbato February 26, 2003 May 13, 2003 4