Federal Communications Commission	DA 22-843


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


In the Matter of

Verizon

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




Complaint No. 5585822
                           

ORDER

Adopted:  August 9, 2022		Released:  August 10, 2022

By the Acting Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we consider a complaint alleging that Verizon changed Complainant’s telecommunications service provider without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainant as required by the Commission’s rules. See Informal Complaint No. 5585822 (filed July 6, 2022); see also 47 CFR §§ 64.1100 – 64.1190.
  We conclude that Verizon’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. 5585822 (filed July 6, 2022).
  Pursuant to our rules, we notified Verizon 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, Verizon states that it provided the underlying local network service for Complainant’s telephone line to AT&T on a wholesale basis. See Verizon Response to Informal Complaint No. 5585822 (filed July 27, 2022) (Verizon Response).
  According to Verizon, AT&T submitted a cancellation order to Verizon in May, which Verizon executed, thereby resulting in Complainant losing local telephone service on her number. Id.
  Verizon states that Complainant subsequently contacted Verizon to establish a new voice line on the number she previously used. Verizon provided an audio recording of the call with Complainant “establishing this new voice service and confirming her intent.”  See Verizon Response at 1. 
  Verizon further states that Complainant’s “new voice connection is a [V]oice over Internet [P]rotocol (VoIP) service” and thus, “not subject to the Commission’s third-party verification rules.” Id.

4. The evidence shows that after Complainant contacted Verizon, Verizon initiated service for Complainant at her request and that the service was a VoIP service.  The Commission’s carrier change rules have not been extended to VoIP service. See 47 CFR § 64.1120.  We note that the Commission has sought comment on whether it is necessary 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, based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that Verizon’s actions did not result in an “unauthorized change” in Complainant’s telecommunications service provider, as defined in the rules. See 47 CFR § 64.1100(e).  If Complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution of her 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 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 id. § 1.719.
  
5. 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 Verizon IS DENIED.
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.			
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




Kristi Thornton
Acting Chief
Consumer Policy Division
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
		
4