Federal Communications Commission	DA 21-886


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

In the Matter of

Telplex Communications d/b/a RingPlanet

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



Complaint No. 4877401
                           

ORDER

Adopted:  July 21, 2021	Released:  July 22, 2021

By the Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we consider a complaint alleging that Telplex Communications d/b/a RingPlanet (RingPlanet) changed Complainant’s telecommunications service provider without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainant as required by the Commission’s rules. See Informal Complaint No. 4877401 (filed July 1, 2021); see also 47 CFR §§ 64.1100 – 64.1190.
  We find that RingPlanet’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 has also 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. 4877401.
  In the complaint, Complainant alleges that she “received a call from someone claiming to be an AT&T customer rep [who] told me I was to change my AT&T service because I live in a rural area and needed phone service if the electricity went out.” Id.
  Complainant stated that she was then transferred to an employee of RingPlanet who reiterated that they represented AT&T, and that AT&T would continue to provide service on AT&T lines. Id.
  On that basis, Complainant signed a letter of agency (LOA) agreeing to the service change.
4. Pursuant to our rules, we notified RingPlanet 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).
  In its response, RingPlanet asserts that it obtained Complainant’s authorization to upgrade her service to RingPlanet’s Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, and it confirmed the change with a signed LOA. See RingPlanet Response to Informal Complaint No. 4877401 (filed July 8, 2021).
  RingPlanet states that the LOA makes clear that RingPlanet is “only in collaboration with AT&T and not part of or affiliated with them.” Id. at 1.
  RingPlanet nevertheless also states in its response that Complainant would not be leaving AT&T’s service, and that RingPlanet “simply provides the billing and tier one customer support” for AT&T. Id.  In addition, RingPlanet confirmed that the porting of Complainant’s number was not completed, and Complainant will not be charged for any VoIP equipment RingPlanet mailed to Complainant.  Id. at 2.
   
5.  After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we disagree that RingPlanet was simply handling the billing and customer service for AT&T.  The evidence shows that RingPlanet initiated a change in Complainant’s service to its VoIP 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 RingPlanet’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 d/b/a RingPlanet 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
		
4