Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2288
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
BullsEye Telecom, Inc.
Complaint Regarding 
Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IC No. 10-S2783004
ORDER
Adopted:  December 2, 2010 Released:  December 6, 2010
By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we consider the complaint1 alleging that BullsEye Telecom, Inc., 
(BullsEye) changed Complainant’s telecommunications service provider without obtaining 
authorization and verification from Complainant in violation of the Commission’s rules.2 We 
conclude that BullsEye’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 of 
  
1 Informal Complaint No. IC 10-S2783004, filed August 23, 2010.
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); Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 493, (2008).  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 10-2288
2
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 23, 2010, alleging that 
Complainant’s telecommunications service provider had been changed to BullsEye without 
Complainant’s authorization.  Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules,11 we notified 
  
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 10-2288
3
BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on October 11, 2010.12 BullsEye states 
authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and 
processed.13 We have reviewed the LOA that BullsEye submitted with its response.  BullsEye’s 
LOA does not contain a listing of the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our 
rules.14 We find that BullsEye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that 
Complainant authorized a carrier change.15 Therefore, we find that BullsEye’s actions resulted in 
an unauthorized change in Complainant’s telecommunications service provider and we discuss 
BullsEye’s liability below.16
5. Pursuant to Section 64.1170(b) our rules, BullsEye must forward to AT&T, Inc. 
(AT&T) and Granite Telecom (Granite) an amount equal to 150% of all charges paid by the 
subscriber to BullsEye along with copies of any telephone bills issued from BullsEye to the 
Complainant.17 Within ten days of receipt of this amount, AT&T and Granite shall provide a 
refund or credit to Complainant in the amount of 50% of all charges paid by Complainant to 
BullsEye.  Complainant has the option of asking AT&T and Granite to re-rate BullsEye charges 
based on AT&T and Granite rates and, on behalf of Complainant, seek from BullsEye, any re-
rated amount exceeding 50% of all charges paid by Complainant to BullsEye. BullsEye must 
also send a notice to the Commission, referencing this Order, stating that is has given a refund or 
credit to Complainant. 18 If AT&T and Granite have not received the reimbursement required 
from BullsEye within 45 days of the release of this Order, AT&T and Granite must notify the 
Commission and Complainant accordingly.  AT&T and Granite also must notify the 
Complainant of its right to pursue a claim against BullsEye for a refund of all charges paid to 
BullsEye.19
  
12 BullsEye’s Response to Informal Complaint No. IC 10-S2783004, received October 11, 2010.
13 BullsEye initially asserts that jurisdiction of Complainant’s complaint lies with the Florida Public 
Service Commission (Florida PSC) and claims the Florida PSC already determined that BullEye did not slam 
Complainant.  See BullsEye’s Response at 4-7.  Although the Florida PSC initially determined that BullsEye relied 
on the LOA in good faith (see letter from Rick Moses, Chief, Bureau of Service Quality, Florida PSC, to [name 
deleted for privacy] (dated May 16, 2010)), the Florida PSC subsequently advised Complainant that it could not 
rule on this complaint.  See e-mail from Rick Moses, Florida PSC, to [name deleted for privacy] (dated August 23, 
2010).          
14 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130(e)(1).  
15 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d).
16 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 
Complainant.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.719.
17 See 47 C.F.R § 64.1170(b)(1),(2).
18 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1170(c).
19 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1170(e).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2288
4
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 complaint filed against 
BullsEye Telecom, Inc., IS GRANTED.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 64.1170(b) of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1170(b), that BullsEye must forward to AT&T and Granite 
an amount equal to 150% of all charges paid by the subscriber along with copies of any telephone 
bills issued from the company to the Complainant within ten (10) days of the release of this 
order.
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