Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4401
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Horizon Telecom
Complaints Regarding 
Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IC No. 07-S0280094
 07-S0280224
 07-S0280637
07-S0280810
07-S0280812
07-S0280845
07-S0281729
 
ORDER
Adopted:  October 25, 2007 Released: October 29, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we consider the complaints filed by Complainants1 alleging that
Horizon Telecom (Horizon) changed Complainants’ telecommunications service providers
without obtaining authorization and verification in violation of the Commission’s rules.2 We 
conclude that Horizon’s actions did result in unauthorized changes in Complainants’
telecommunications service providers and we grant 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, 
2001); Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 5099 
(2003); Order, 18 FCC Rcd 10997 (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 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 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4401
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; (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 Complainants’ complaints alleging that Complainants’ 
telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants’ 
(Continued from previous page)    
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4401
3
authorization.  Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules,11 we notified Horizon of the 
complaints.  Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints.  The failure of Horizon to 
respond or provide proof of the verifications within 30 days is presumed to be clear and 
convincing evidence of violations.12  Therefore, we find that Horizon’s actions resulted in 
unauthorized changes in Complainants’ telecommunications service providers and we discuss 
Horizon’s liability below.13 We also will forward a copy of the record of this proceeding to our 
Enforcement Bureau to determine what additional action may be necessary.
5. Horizon must remove all charges incurred for service provided to Complainants 
for the first thirty days after the alleged unauthorized changes in accordance with the 
Commission’s liability rules.14 We have determined that Complainants are entitled to absolution 
for the charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and 
that neither the Complainants authorized carrier nor Horizon may pursue any collection against 
Complainants for those charges.15 Any charges imposed by Horizon on the subscribers for 
service provided after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscribers to the their respective 
authorized carrier at the rates the subscribers were paying to the respective authorized carrier at 
the time of unauthorized changes of telecommunications service providers.16  
6. 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 Horizon Telecom ARE GRANTED.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 64.1170(d) of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1170(d), Complainants are entitled to absolution for the 
charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and neither 
Complainants’ authorized carrier nor Horizon may pursue any collection against Complainants
for those charges.
  
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 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d).
13 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.
14 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(b).
15 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(d).
16 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4401
4
8. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Nancy A. Stevenson, Deputy Chief
Consumer Policy Division
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4401
5
APPENDIX A
INFORMAL DATE OF DATE OF
COMPLAINT COMPLAINT SERVED NOTICE  
07-S0280094 June 26, 2007 August 2, 2007
07-S0280224 July 5, 2007 July 31, 2007
07-S0280637 July 17, 2007 August 14, 2007
07-S0280810 July 30, 2007 August 17, 2007
07-S0280812 January 30, 2007 August 3, 2007
07-S0280845 June 18, 2007 August 10, 2007
07-S0281729 August 13, 2007 August 17, 2007