Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3233
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Embarq Communications, Inc.  
Complaint Regarding 
Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IC No. 06-S0253368
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  July 12, 2007 Released: July 13, 2007
By the Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we grant a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Embarq Communications, 
Inc. (Embarq) asking us to reverse a finding that Embarq changed Complainant’s telecommunications 
service provider in violation of the Commission’s rules by failing to obtain proper authorization and 
verification.1 On reconsideration, we find that Embarq’s actions did not violate the Commission’s carrier 
change rules.2 We therefore grant Embarq’s Petition and deny the complaint.
I.  BACKGROUND
2. In December 1998, the Commission adopted rules prohibiting the practice of 
“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.3  The rules were also designed to take 
the profit out of slamming.4 The Commission applied the rules to all wireline carriers,5 and modified its 
existing requirements for the authorization and verification of preferred carrier changes.6
3. The rules require that a submitting carrier receive individual subscriber consent before a 
carrier change may occur.7 Specifically, a carrier must:  (1) obtain the subscriber's written or 
  
1 See Petition for Reconsideration of Embarq Communications, Inc. (filed March 5, 2007) (Petition), seeking 
reconsideration of Embarq Communications, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd 1196 (2007) (Division Order), issued by the 
Consumer Policy Division (Division), Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB).  
2 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100 – 64.1190.    
3 See id.; see also 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
4 See 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 Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1512, para. 
4 (1998) (Section 258 Order).  See also id. at 1518-19, para. 13.
5 See id. at 1560, para. 85.  CMRS providers were exempted from the verification requirements.  See id.
6 See id. at 1549, para. 66.
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120; see also 47 U.S.C. § 258(a) (barring carriers from changing a customer’s preferred 
local or long distance carrier without first complying with one of the Commission’s verification procedures).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3233
2
electronically signed 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.8
4. The Commission also adopted liability rules for carriers that engage in slamming.9  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.10 Where the subscriber has paid charges to the unauthorized carrier, the 
unauthorized carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier 
must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized 
carrier.11
5. The Commission received a complaint on October 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant’s 
telecommunications service provider had been changed from Time Warner Cable (Time Warner) to 
Embarq without Complainant’s authorization.12 Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the 
Commission’s rules,13 the Division notified Embarq of the complaint.14  In its response, Embarq stated 
that a new service order requested by Complainant was processed effective August 31, 2006, and that the 
order noted Complainant needed service as soon as possible.15 Embarq states that Complainant contacted 
it on September 18, 2006, and advised he did not authorize service with Embarq.16  The Division found 
that Embarq did not submit a third party verification (TPV) or letter of agency (LOA) as required by the 
Commission rules17 and, therefore, Embarq failed to show that Complainant authorized a change in his 
telecommunications service provider.18 Embarq seeks reconsideration of the Division Order.
II.  DISCUSSION
6. Based on the record before us, we reverse the Division Order and grant the Petition. As 
  
8 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.
9 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160-70.
10 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). 
11 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1170.  
12 Informal Complaint No. IC 06-S0253368, filed October 27, 2006. 
13 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).
14 See Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC 06-S0253368 to Embarq from the Deputy Chief, Division, CGB, 
dated November 9, 2006.
15 Embarq’s Response to Informal Complaint No. IC 06-S0253368, received December 21, 2006 (Embarq 
Response).
16 Id.
17 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120-64.1130.
18 See Division Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1196 (2007); see also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3233
3
discussed below, we determine that there was no violation of the Commission’s carrier change rules.
7. Complainant indicated he moved in July, 2006, and contacted Embarq to request a quote 
for phone service.  Complainant states, however, that he did not authorize Embarq to actually establish 
service. Complainant stated he later established service with Time Warner.  In the Petition, Embarq
contends there was no unauthorized change because, as it noted in its response to the complaint, Embarq’s 
records reflect that Complainant contacted Embarq on August 31, 2006, requesting new service.19  
Embarq states that because a new service order was taken from Complainant, no services were changed or 
switched, and, thus, a TPV or LOA was not required under the Commission’s rules.20
8. In light of Embarq’s assertions in the Petition, the Division notified Time Warner
(Complainant’s local exchange carrier) of the complaint and Embarq’s response, and asked Time Warner 
for information regarding any switching activity on Complainant’s account.21 Time Warner responded on 
April 10, 2007, stating that it installed service for Complainant on July 31, 2006, per Complainant’s 
request.  Time Warner further states that it continuously has provided service to Complainant since 
installation, has not received any request for release of Complainant’s telephone number from Embarq or 
any other carrier, and has taken no action causing Embarq to issue bills to Complainant.22  
9. Based on the evidence provided by Time Warner that indicates no switch by Embarq 
after July 31, 2006, it appears Embarq did not at any time provide service to Complainant.  Rather, 
Embarq telephone bills sent to Complainant appear to be billing mistakes rather than the result of an 
unauthorized switch.23  Consequently, there was no violation by Embarq of the Commission’s carrier 
change rules.  Accordingly, we grant the Petition.
III.  ORDERING CLAUSES
10. 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, 1.106 and 1.719 of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141, 0.361, 1.106, 1.719, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Embarq on March 
5, 2007, IS GRANTED and the complaint filed against Embarq on October 27, 2006, IS DENIED.
  
19 The Division interpreted Embarq’s statement of “a new service order” to mean a new service order as opposed 
to a new service order.  In the Third Order on Reconsideration, the Commission declined to apply the slamming 
rules to new installations.  See Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 5099, 5135-38, paras. 96-101 (2003).  
20 See Petition at 1-2.
21 See Letter re Informal Complaint No. IC 06-S0253368 to Time Warner from the Deputy Chief, Division, CGB, 
dated March 13, 2007.
22 See Time Warner’s Response to Informal Complaint No. IC 06-S0253368, received April 10, 2007.
23 We note that Embarq has refunded payments which Complainant had made to Embarq.  See Embarq Response
at 1.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3233
4
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective UPON RELEASE.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Catherine W. Seidel, Chief
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau