Federal Communications Commission DA 07-346
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Privasafe
Complaint Regarding 
Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IC No. 05-S0206797
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted: January 29, 2007 Released: January 29, 2007
By the Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we grant a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Privasafe1 asking us to 
reverse a finding that Privasafe changed Complainant’s telecommunications service provider in violation 
of the Commission’s rules by failing to obtain proper authorization and verification.2 On reconsideration, 
we find that Privasafe’s actions did not violate the Commission’s carrier change rules.3 We therefore 
grant Privasafe’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.4 The rules were designed to take the 
profit out of slamming.5  The Commission applied the rules to all wireline carriers,6 and modified its 
existing requirements for the authorization and verification of preferred carrier changes.7
  
1 See Petition for Reconsideration of Privasafe (filed February 21, 2006) (Petition) seeking reconsideration of 
Privasafe, 21 FCC Rcd 775 (2006) (Division Order), issued by the Consumer Policy Division (Division), 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB).
2 See Division Order, 21 FCC Rcd 775 (2006).
3 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100 – 64.1190.
4 See id.; see also 47 U.S.C. § 258(a). 
5 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.
6 See id. at 1560, para. 85.  CMRS providers were exempted from the verification requirements.  See Section 258 
Order at 1560-61, para. 85.
7 See Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1549, para. 66.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-346
2
3. The rules require that a submitting carrier receive individual subscriber consent before a 
carrier change may occur.8 Specifically, a carrier must:  (1) obtain the subscriber's written or 
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.9
4. The Commission also adopted liability rules for carriers that engage in slamming.10 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.11 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.12
5. The Commission received a complaint on November 21, 2005, alleging that 
Complainant’s telecommunications service provider had been changed to Privasafe without 
Complainant’s authorization.13 Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission’s rules,14 the 
Division notified Privasafe of the complaint.15 In its response, Privasafe stated that authorization was 
received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed.16  In the Division 
Order, the Division found that Privasafe’s electronic LOA did not contain an electronic signature, as 
required by the Commission’s rules17 and, therefore, found that Privasafe’s actions resulted in an 
unauthorized change in Complainant’s telecommunications service provider.18 Privasafe seeks 
reconsideration of the Division Order.
II.  DISCUSSION
  
8 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).
9 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.
10 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160-70.
11 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).
12 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1170.  
13 Informal Complaint No. IC 05-S0206797, filed November 21, 2005.
14 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).
15 See Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC 05-S0206797 to Privasafe from the Deputy Chief, Division, CGB, 
dated December 22, 2005.
16 Privasafe’s Response to Informal Complaint No. IC 05-S0206797, received January 6, 2006 (Response).
17 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(a).
18 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-346
3
6. Based on the record before us, we reverse the Division Order and grant the Petition.  In 
the Petition, Privasafe argues that it is an enhanced service provider offering enhanced services that are 
charged to customers’ local exchange carrier telephone bills and, as such, is not a telecommunications 
carrier.19  Upon further review of Privasafe’s initial response to the complaint, we find that Privasafe  
conveyed this information to the Division within the proper time frame.20  Because Privasafe is not a 
telecommunications carrier, it is not subject to the existing carrier change rules.21  Therefore, we grant the 
Petition and find that Privasafe did not violate the Commission’s carrier change rules.
III.  ORDERING CLAUSES
7. 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 Privasafe, on 
February 21, 2006, IS GRANTED and the complaint filed against Privasafe on November 21, 2005, IS 
DENIED.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective UPON RELEASE.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Catherine W. Seidel, Chief
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
  
19 See Petition at 3-4.
20 See Response at 1.
21 The term unauthorized carrier is generally any telecommunications carrier that submits a change, on behalf of a 
subscriber, in the subscriber's selection of a provider of telecommunications service but fails to obtain the 
subscriber's authorization verified in accordance with the procedures specified in this part (emphasis added).  47 
C.F.R. § 64.1110(d).