Federal Communications Commission	DA 20-200


Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Telplex Communications

Complaint Regarding 
Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
)
)
)
)
)
)




Complaint No. 3329205
                           

ORDER

Adopted:  February 27, 2020		Released:  February 27, 2020

By the Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we consider a complaint alleging that Telplex Communications (Telplex) changed Complainant’s telecommunications service provider without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainant as required by the Commission’s rules. See Informal Complaint No. 3329205 (filed June 14, 2019); see also 47 CFR §§ 64.1100 – 64.1190.
  We find that Telplex’s actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant’s telecommunications service provider, and we deny Complainant’s complaint.
2. Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), prohibits 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. 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
  The Commission’s implementing rules require, among other things, that a carrier receive individual subscriber consent before a carrier change may occur. See 47 CFR § 64.1120.
  Specifically, a carrier must: (1) obtain the subscriber's written or electronically signed authorization in a format that satisfies our rules; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; or (3) utilize an appropriately qualified independent third party to verify the order. See id. § 64.1120(c).  Section 64.1130 details the requirements for letter of agency form and content for written or electronically signed authorizations.  Id. § 64.1130.
  The Commission also has adopted rules to limit the liability of subscribers when an unauthorized carrier change occurs, and to require carriers involved in slamming practices to compensate subscribers whose carriers were changed without authorization. These rules require the unauthorized carrier to absolve the subscriber where the subscriber has not paid his or her bill.  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.  See id. §§ 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.  Where the subscriber has paid charges to the unauthorized carrier, the Commission’s rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150 percent of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50 percent of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier.  See id. §§ 64.1140, 64.1170.  
   
3. We received Complainant’s complaint alleging that Complainant’s telecommunications service provider had been changed without Complainant’s authorization. See Informal Complaint No. 3329205.
  In the complaint, Complainant also alleges that Telplex’s telemarketer claimed they “were with AT&T” and offered her a deal for telephone Internet service.  She stated that she tried to cancel the service once she realized that Telplex “was not in fact associated with AT&T.” Id.
  Complainant asked that Telplex “give an explanation as to why they are contacting AT&T customers and misleading them into believing that they are associated [with AT&T] in order to get their business.” Id.
  Complainant requested that Telplex issue a full refund for any services, and that Telplex disconnect her account so that she could return to AT&T. Id.

4. Pursuant to our rules, we notified Telplex of the complaint. 47 CFR. § 1.719 (Commission procedure for informal complaints filed pursuant to section 258 of the Act); id. § 64.1150 (procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in preferred carrier).
  Telplex responded to the complaint, stating that authorization was received and confirmed through a letter of agency (LOA). See Telplex Response to Informal Complaint No. 3329205 (filed July 19, 2019).
  Telplex provided a copy of the LOA and stated that Telplex called Complainant “to upgrade (not switch) Complainant’s copper service to digital VoIP service.” Id.
  Specifically, Telplex stated that the Complainant’s “network, technicians and equipment are still with AT&T.  Telplex only handles the billing and customer service . . . [t]herefore, it is a true statement that Telplex works ‘with’ AT&T to upgrade AT&T services.” Id.
  
5.  We also contacted Complainant’s local exchange carrier, which confirmed that Telplex did not submit a request to change Complainant’s preferred carrier.  Thus, we find that while Telplex may have marketed its service to Complainant, Telplex’s actions did not result in an “unauthorized change” in Complainant’s telecommunications service provider, as defined in the rules. 47 CFR § 64.1100(e).  If Complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution of its complaint, Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission pursuant to section 1.721 of the Commission’s rules, id. § 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 id. § 1.719.
  
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 CFR §§ 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaint filed against Telplex Communications IS DENIED.

7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.			
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




Kurt A. Schroeder
Chief
Consumer Policy Division
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
		
3