Federal Communications Commission DA 20-213 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. 3583063 ORDER Adopted: March 2, 2020 Released: March 3, 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. 3583063 (filed Oct. 7, 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. 3583063. In the complaint, Complainant also alleges that “[a] third party biller Telplex, presented themselves as our telephone service provider, ATT, claiming our office phone system required updating, and their technician required access that day.” Id. Complainant explains that her business later received a bill from Telplex, and that Telplex “would not switch service back, changed our account passcode and had no representative able to assist.” Id. Complainant states she then worked with departments “within [the] real ATT to re-establish authority over our phone numbers.” 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. 3583063 (filed Nov. 8, 2019). Telplex provided a copy of the LOA and asserts that the LOA “discloses that Telplex is a Platinum solution provider with the AT&T Partner Exchange.” Id. Telplex further states that “a customer upgrading from AT&T copper service to AT&T’s APEX Voip and broadband service remains as an AT&T customer . . .Telplex simply handles the billing and fields customer service calls.” Id. Telplex argues that the individual who signed the LOA “confirmed that he understood the precise relationship between AT&T and Telplex.” Id. 5. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we disagree that Telplex was simply handling the billing and customer service on behalf of AT&T. The evidence shows that Telplex initiated a change in Complainant’s service and began providing a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to Complainant. Telplex also began billing Complainant for its service. The Commission’s carrier change rules, however, have not been extended to VoIP service. See 47 CFR § 64.1120. We note that the Commission has sought comment on whether to extend slamming regulations to VoIP or other IP-enabled service providers. See Enabled Services, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4863, 4910-11, paras. 71-72 (2004). Thus, we conclude that 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