Federal Communications Commission DA 09-446
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
New Century Telecom
Complaint Regarding 
Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IC No. 08-S002140
ORDER
Adopted: February 24, 2009 Released: February 27, 2009
By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we consider the complaint filed by Complainant1 alleging that New 
Century Telecom (New Century) changed Complainant’s telecommunications service provider 
without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainant in violation of the 
Commission’s rules.2 We conclude that New Century’s actions did result in an unauthorized 
change in Complainant’s telecommunications service provider and we grant Complainant’s 
complaint. 
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 
“slamming,” the submission or execution of an unauthorized change in a subscriber’s selection 
  
1 Informal Complaint No. IC 08-S002140, filed August 5, 2008. 
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 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).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-446
2
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 Complainant’s complaint on August 5, 2008, alleging that 
Complainant’s telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Arizona to 
Zero Plus Dialing (ZPDI) without Complainant’s authorization.  Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 
64.1150 of our rules,11 we notified ZPDI of the complaint.  USBI responded on September 2, 
  
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.
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).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-446
3
2008, on behalf of ZPDI.12 USBI stated in its response that it forwarded the complaint to New 
Century.  Attached to USBI’s response was a New Century response and a third party 
verification recording (TPV) as evidence that New Century had authorization to change 
Complainant’s service.13 Nevertheless, pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules,14
we notified New Century of the complaint in order to give New Century official notice of the 
complaint and to get a response directly from New Century. 15 New Century has failed to 
respond to the complaint.  The failure of New Century to respond or provide proof of verification 
within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation.16 Therefore, we 
find that New Century’s actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss 
New Century’s liability below.17 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. New Century must remove all charges incurred for service provided to 
Complainant for the first thirty days after the alleged unauthorized change in accordance with the 
Commission’s liability rules.18 We have determined that Complainant is entitled to absolution 
for the charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and 
that Cox Arizona nor Zero Plus Dialing may pursue any collection against Complainant for those 
charges.19 Any charges imposed by Zero Plus Dialing on the subscriber for service provided 
after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber to Cox Arizona at the rates the subscriber 
was paying to their authorized carrier at the time of the unauthorized change.20
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 
  
12 USBI’s Response on behalf of Zero Plus Dialing to Informal Complaint No. IC 08-S002140, 
received September 2, 2008.
13 This TPV, however, violated our carrier change rules.  The verifier failed to confirm that the 
person was authorized to make the switch.
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 Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC 08-S002140 was mailed on December 8, 2008.  On 
December 10, 2008, the Commission received the certified mail return receipt confirming delivery.
16 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d).
17 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 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.
18 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(b).
19 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(d).
20 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-446
4
1.719 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaint filed by 
Complainant against New Century Telecom IS 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), Complainant is entitled to absolution for the 
charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and that 
neither Cox Arizona nor Zero Plus Dialing may pursue any collection against Complainant for 
those charges.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Nancy A. Stevenson, Deputy Chief
Consumer Policy Division
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau