Federal Communications Commission DA 09-518
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Embarq Communications
Complaint Regarding 
Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IC No. 08-S0293390
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  February 26, 2009 Released:  February 26, 2009 
By the Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we grant a petition filed by Embarq asking us to reconsider a finding that 
Embarq changed the 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 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 
  
1 See Petition for Reconsideration of Embarq (filed November 20, 2008) (Petition), seeking reconsideration of 
Embarq Communications, 23 FCC Rcd 16001(2008) (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 Section 258 
Order at 1560-61, para. 85.
6 See Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1549, para. 66.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-518
2
carrier change may occur.7 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.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 April 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant’s 
telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without 
Complainant’s authorization.12 Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission’s rules,13 the 
Division notified AT&T of the complaint.14 In response, AT&T stated that Complainant’s carrier or the 
carrier involved in the alleged switching of telephone service is a carrier that purchases from AT&T 
certain telecommunications services identified as AT&T Network Connection Service (ANC).15 Based 
on AT&T’s response, the Division notified Embarq, Complainant’s local exchange carrier (LEC), of the 
complaint because AT&T’s response cited potential mistakes made by Complainant’s LEC that could 
have led to the complaint.16 Embarq responded,17 but the Division believed that Embarq did not address 
  
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).
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 08-S02933390, filed April 21, 2008.
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 Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC 08-S02933390 to AT&T from the Deputy Chief, Division, dated April 24, 
2008.
15 AT&T’s Response to Informal Complaint No. 08-S02933390, received May 20, 2008 (AT&T Response).  
According to AT&T, ANC is a CIC-based platform that requires the purchasing carrier to have its own Carrier 
Identification Code (CIC).  Using ANC, the purchasing carrier does its own provisioning with the relevant local 
exchange carrier (LEC).
16 Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC 08-S02933390 to Embarq from the Deputy Chief, Division, dated August 
8, 2008. 
17 Embarq’s Response to Informal Complaint No. IC 08-S0293390, received September 8, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-518
3
certain issues raised in AT&T’s response and, therefore, sent Embarq a second request. Specifically, the 
Division asked Embarq to address the following:  1) whether or not Embarq is CIP capable; 2) whether or 
not Embarq opened the reseller’s CIC; and 3) whether or not Embarq properly processed the request to 
open the CIC of the reseller in all of Embarq’s tandems.18 In response to this request, Embarq referred the 
Division to its Supplemental Response filed on September 18, 2008.19 The Division Order indicated that 
Embarq’s Supplemental Response did not address all of the issues raised by AT&T about which the 
Division sought further information and, thus, determined that Embarq failed to provide the requested 
information.20 Therefore, the Division found that Embarq’s actions resulted in a violation of our carrier 
change rules.21 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 
discussed below, Embarq did not violate the Commission’s carrier change rules because Embarq did not 
change Complainant’s service in an unauthorized manner.     
7. Upon further review, we agree with Embarq that its Supplemental Response provided the 
information which the Division requested.  Specifically, Embarq’s Supplemental Response included the 
customer’s PIC history, which showed that Embarq properly provisioned the customer’s PIC to IDT (the 
authorized carrier), and that Embarq did not change Complainant’s service away from IDT without 
authorization from a subscriber.22 The PIC history provided by Embarq also indicated no change of 
service from IDT to AT&T.23 It appears the complaint resulted from a billing issue and not a switch of 
carriers.  Accordingly, we grant the Petition. 24  
 
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
8. 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 filed by Embarq on November 20, 2008, IS 
GRANTED and the complaint filed against Embarq on April 21, 2008, IS DENIED.
  
18 See electronic mail to Joseph J. Harper, Embarq, from Bert Weintraub, FCC, dated October 2, 2008.   
19 See electronic mail to Bert Weintraub from Sharron Turner, Manager, Embarq, dated October 2, 2008 
(containing Embarq’s supplemental response to Informal Complaint No. IC 08-S0293390, filed September 18, 
2008 (Supplemental Response)).     
20 See Order, 23 FCC Rcd 16001(2008). 
21 See id.; see also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d). 
22 See PIC history attached to Supplemental Response. 
23 See id.
24 Because we grant the Petition for the reasons set forth above, we need not address Embarq’s remaining 
arguments. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-518
4
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective UPON RELEASE.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Catherine W. Seidel, Chief
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau