*Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 49758.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 05- 1826 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Sprint Communications Company Complaints Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IC Nos. 05- S89336 05- S89360 05- S89432 05- S89511 05- B0163049S 05- I0157470S 05- I0162608S 05- I0164507S 05- I0169787S ORDER Adopted: June 27, 2005 Released: June 29, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau: 1. In this Order, we consider the complaints 1 alleging that Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) changed Complainants’ telecommunications service providers without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainants in violation of the Commission’s rules. 2 We conclude that Sprint’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 Company v. FCC, No. 99- 1125 (D. C. Cir. May 18, 1999); First Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158 (2000); stay lifted, MCI Company 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 Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 5099 (2003); Order, FCC 03- 116, (rel. May 23, 2003). 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 (continued….) 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 05- 1826 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) obtains 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’ (Continued from previous page) 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 05- 1826 3 telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants’ authorization. 11 Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, 12 we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. 13 Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letters of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. 14 Therefore, we find that Sprint’s actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants’ telecommunications service. 15 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 ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nancy A. Stevenson, Deputy Chief Consumer Policy Division Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau 11 See Appendix A. 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). 13 See Appendix A. 14 See 47 C. F. R. § 64.1150( d). 15 If a 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. 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 05- 1826 4 APPENDIX A INFORMAL COMPLAINT NUMBER DATE OF COMPLAINT DATE OF CARRIER RESPONSE 05- S89336 April 12, 2005 May 20, 2005 05- S89360 February 24, 2005 May 20, 2005 05- S89432 April 25, 2005 June 8, 2005 05- S89511 May 9, 2005 June 6, 2005 05- B0163049S January 13, 2005 June 3, 2005 05- I0157470S December 27, 2004 May 19, 2005 05- I0162608S February 14, 2005 May 20, 2005 05- I0164507S February 14, 2005 June 6, 2005 05- I0169787S March 7, 2005 June 3, 2005 4