July 3, 2025 FCC FACT SHEET* Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges, Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – CG Docket No. 17-169, CC Docket No. 98-170 Background: The aim of the Commission’s slamming and Truth-in-Billing rules is to ensure that consumers receive service from the telephone provider of their choice and their bills are both easy to understand and contain only authorized charges. Slamming is the illegal practice of submitting or executing a change in a consumer’s wireline telephone service provider for local, local toll, or long distance service without their permission. The Truth-in-Billing rules require, among other things, that bills are clearly organized and help consumers understand charges. Today, consumers rarely file slamming complaints due to the rise of all-distance services, such as VoIP and CMRS (not covered by our slamming rules) and the Commission’s efforts to combat slamming. And the Commission has not taken recent enforcement action on either slamming or Truth-in-Billing. Since their adoption decades ago, the Commission has added more prescriptive slamming and Truth-in-Billing rules that may no longer protect consumers in light of marketplace evolution and other changes. And they may stifle innovation while imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens. What the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Would Do: • Seek comment on whether slamming and billing concerns remain significant consumer problems in light of marketplace changes since the Commission adopted the rules and on whether the rules remain necessary to protect consumers. • Propose and seek comment on unifying the rules into a single rule section if the record reflects that rules remain necessary. • For slamming, propose and seek comment on a single, streamlined rule that ensures consumer protection against unauthorized switches of their chosen providers while eliminating the current prescriptive requirements that may inhibit consumer choice. • For Truth-in-Billing, propose and seek comment on eliminating several likely outdated sections of the rules, including those that address bygone practices such as placement of third-party charges on carrier bills. And propose and seek comment on retaining the core protections that ensure bills are clear and easy-to-understand. * This document is being released as part of a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding. Any presentations or views on the subject expressed to the Commission or its staff, including by email, must be filed in CG Docket No. 17-169 and CC Docket No. 98-170, which may be accessed via the Electronic Comment Filing System (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/). Before filing, participants should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules, including the general prohibition on presentations (written and oral) on matters listed on the Sunshine Agenda, which is typically released a week prior to the Commission’s meeting. See 47 CFR § 1.1200 et seq. Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Carrier ) CG Docket No. 17-169 Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges ) ) Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format ) CC Docket No. 98-170 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING* Adopted: [ ] Released: [ ] Comment Date: [30 days after Federal Register publication] Reply Date: [60 days after Federal Register publication] By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission’s slamming and Truth-in-Billing (billing) rules aim to ensure that consumers receive service from the telephone provider of their choice and their bills are both easy to understand and contain only charges they authorize. These goals are simple and commonsense, yet they have resulted over the last several decades in complicated, highly-prescriptive, and outdated regulations that may stifle innovation without giving consumers much in the way of additional protection. 2. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we explore whether our slamming and billing rules remain necessary to protect consumers. If so, we propose changes to modernize and simplify the rules to reflect the evolution of the telecommunications marketplace and reduce regulatory burdens, while retaining core consumer protections against unauthorized carrier switches and charges. II. BACKGROUND A. Slamming 3. Slamming is the illegal practice of submitting or executing a change in a consumer’s wireline telephone service provider for local, local toll, or long distance service without their permission,1 * This document has been circulated for tentative consideration by the Commission at its July 24, 2025 open meeting. The issues referenced in this document and the Commission’s ultimate resolutions of those issues remain under consideration and subject to change. This document does not constitute any official action by the Commission. However, the Chairman has determined that, in the interest of promoting the public’s ability to understand the nature and scope of issues under consideration, the public interest would be served by making this document publicly available. The Commission’s ex parte rules apply and presentations are subject to “permit- butdisclose” ex parte rules. See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 1.1206, 1.1200(a). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules, including the general prohibition on presentations (written and oral) on matters listed on the Sunshine Agenda, which is typically released a week prior to the Commission’s meeting. See 47 CFR §§ 1.1200(a), 1.1203. 1 Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), adopted in section 101(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, made it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to “submit or execute a change in a subscriber’s selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 effectively depriving consumers of their chosen provider, distorting the market, and rewarding companies that deceive consumers via misrepresentation and other fraudulent practices. 4. Slamming emerged four decades ago, a side-effect of the Commission’s then newly-adopted equal access requirements,2 which facilitated competition in the long distance service market following the divestiture of AT&T. With competition for long distance service came incentives for unscrupulous long distance providers to switch consumers’ long distance carriers without their consent by submitting a change request to the consumers’ local telephone companies. The Commission’s slamming rules protect consumers from such illegal switches, and provide a remedy if they have been slammed. After Congress adopted section 258 of the Communications Act,3 the Commission specified four alternative forms of evidence carriers could use to demonstrate that a consumer consented to a carrier change: (1) a Letter of Agency; (2) an electronic authorization (a call to a toll-free number that records the caller’s originating automatic number identification); (3) “[a]ny State-enacted verification procedures applicable to intrastate preferred carrier change orders only;” or (4) a third-party verification, which is a recorded conversation between an independent third-party verifier and the consumer.4 Consumers could further protect themselves from an unauthorized change by freezing their choice of carriers, a process known as a preferred interexchange carrier (PIC) freeze.5 5. Over the years, the Commission has enforced against slammers, both through the Enforcement Bureau with fines6 and through the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau’s (CGB) adjudications that reimburse consumers for slamming losses.7 But today, consumers rarely file slamming except in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.” 47 U.S.C. § 258(a) (codifying Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 101(a), 110 Stat. 56, 77 (1996)). 2 Equal access allows subscribers to access the facilities of a designated interexchange carrier (IXC) by dialing “1” only, rather than dialing a multi-digit access code for some IXCs. 3 47 U.S.C. § 258(a) (procedures for informal complaints filed pursuant to section 258). 4 47 CFR § 64.1120(c). 5 47 CFR § 64.1190. 6 See, e.g., Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 10392 (2016) (Central Telecom Forfeiture Order); Consumer Telcom, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 10435 (2016) (Consumer Telcom Forfeiture Order); U.S. Telecom Long Distance, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 10413 (2016) (U.S. Telecom Forfeiture Order); Preferred Long Distance, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC Rcd 13711 (2015) (Preferred Forfeiture Order). 7 47 CFR § 1.719 (establishing procedures for informal complaints filed pursuant to section 258). See, e.g., Clear Rate Communications, Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 8634 (CGB 2022) (granting a slamming complaint where a Clear Rate telemarketer claimed to have called on behalf of CenturyLink); Clear Rate Communications, Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 10369 (2020) (granting a slamming complaint where a Clear Rate telemarketer falsely told the complainant that her carrier, Verizon, had gone out of business). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 complaints.8 Fewer consumers subscribe to separate local and long distance wireline services,9 and newer technologies like Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)10 and Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)11 have overtaken traditional wireline communications.12 As such, the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau has not taken action against a service provider for slamming since 2021.13 The number of slamming orders CGB released also has dropped precipitously. For example, CGB released more than 1,500 slamming orders in 2003, but has not released any slamming orders or received any consumer complaints 8 See Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges, CG Docket No. 17-169, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 5773, 5774, para. 7 (2018) (2018 Slamming Order). In the past, however, such complaints were common. For example, the Commission processed 20,154 slamming complaints and 4,558 cramming complaints in 1998. Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98-170, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7494, n.4 (1999) (First Truth-in-Billing Order). Similarly, the Commission processed 8,761, 12,795, and 20,475 slamming complaints in 1995, 1996, and 1997, respectively. Id. For a list of Enforcement Bureau slamming and cramming investigations based on consumer complaints, see 2018 Slamming Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5775-77, paras. 8-12 & n.14. 9 See, e.g., Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C § 160(c) to Accelerate Investment in Broadband and Next-Generation Networks, WC Docket No. 18-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 6503, 6508, para. 11 (2019) (observing that consumers and businesses are rapidly transitioning from legacy switched access voice services to interconnected VoIP service, mobile and fixed wireless services, and over-the-top voice applications). Among those who still have a wireline phone, many have bundled plans with broadband and VoIP service, not traditional wireline with separate local and long distance service. See, e.g., Application of Pac. Bell Tel. Co. d/b/a AT&T California for Targeted Relief from its Carrier of Last Resort Obligation and Certain Associated Tariff Obligations, filed with the Cal. Pub. Utilis. Comm’n, Mar. 3, 2023, Declaration of Mark A. Israel at 23-25, https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M502/K977/502977267.pdf (stating that only 6.5 percent of AT&T’s California customers had POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) in 2022). The Commission observed in the 2024 Communications Marketplace Report that, as of December 2023, residential fixed voice connections were approximately 26% switched-access and approximately 74% interconnected VoIP, with residential switched-access connections comprising approximately only 10% of all fixed retail voice connections. Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 24-119, 2024 Communications Marketplace Report, FCC 24- 136, at para. 156 (2024), available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-136A1.pdf. 10 Section 9.3 of our rules defines interconnected VoIP service as “a service that: (1) enables real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user’s location; (3) requires Internet protocol- compatible customer premises equipment; and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network.” 47 CFR § 9.3. 11 Section 332(d)(1) of the Act defines CMRS as “any mobile service (as defined in section 153 of this title) that is provided for profit and makes interconnected service available (A) to the public or (B) to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the Commission.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1). 12 See note [[9]], supra. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) found that, in 2023, 75 percent of adults in the U.S. had a cell phone only. NCHS, National Health Interview Survey Early Release Program, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2023, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless202406.pdf. Further, according to the Pew Research Center, 90 percent of U.S. adults had a smartphone in 2023. Pew Research Center, American’s Use of Mobile Technology and Home Broadband, (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans- use-of-mobile-technology-and-home-broadband. For more industry data, see CTIA, The Wireless Industry, Industry Data, https://www.ctia.org/the-wireless-industry/infographics-library (last visited June 27, 2025). 13 The Tele Circuit Forfeiture Order was based on slams and crams that occurred in 2017 (and one cram that occurred in 2018). Tele Circuit Network Corp., Forfeiture Order, 36 FCC Rcd 7664, 7667-69, para. 9 (2021) (Tele Circuit Forfeiture Order); Tele Circuit Network Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 33 FCC Rcd 4379, 4399-400 (2018) (Tele Circuit NAL) (all violations occurred in 2017, with the exception of one cram that occurred on Jan. 9, 2018, and one section 1.17 violation that occurred on Jan. 26, 2018). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 that describe a slam in 2025.14 Further, there is no evidence that the types of services consumers once used, such as separate local and long distance services, will regain the popularity or levels of availability they once enjoyed. B. Truth-in-Billing 6. To address consumer confusion about bills and to help consumers spot slamming, the Commission adopted “billing principles” in 1999.15 The billing principles were generally broad,16 and required that billing carriers identify the name of the service provider associated with each charge; separate charges by service provider; and clearly and conspicuously notify the customer of any change in service provider.17 However, they included specific parameters, such as requiring the billing carrier to prominently display a toll-free number on each bill.18 Subsequent Commission orders amended the billing rules to add additional detailed requirements. 7. The billing rules include requirements that bills must: (1) be clearly organized, clearly identify the service provider associated with each charge, and highlight any new provider (i.e., one that did not bill the customer for service during the last billing cycle); (2) contain brief, clear, and non- misleading descriptions of the charges that appear on the bill; and (3) contain clear and conspicuous disclosure of any information that the consumer might need to make inquiries about, or to contest, charges 14 Consumer complaints filed in the past several years alleging slamming generally were not slams because they involved unauthorized switching to VoIP and/or CMRS services of two providers, Clear Rate Communications and Telplex Communications d/b/a RingPlanet (f/k/a Preferred Long Distance). The Commission’s slamming rules apply only to telecommunications carriers. See 47 CFR § 64.1120. Moreover, even though CMRS providers are telecommunications carriers, CMRS providers are excluded from the verification requirements in Subpart K of part 64 of our rules “as long as they are not required to provide equal access to common carriers for the provision of telephone toll services, in accordance with 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(8).” Id. § 64.1120(a)(3). Thus, even if VoIP and CMRS providers engage in misrepresentation to switch the service of consumers without authorization, they are not slamming under our rules. See 2018 Slamming Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5773 & n.2 (“VoIP providers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service providers are not subject to the slamming verification rules.”); see also, e.g., Telplex Commc’ns d/b/a RingPlanet, Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 11470, 11471, para. 5 (CGB 2021) (denying a slamming complaint despite alleged misrepresentations by telemarketers because the service involved was a VoIP service). 15 See First Truth-in-Billing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 7493-97, paras. 1-5. As initially adopted, the billing rules applied to all telecommunications carriers, except that certain rules were not applicable to CMRS providers. See id. at 7501-03, paras. 13-19. In 2005, in the Second Truth-in-Billing Order, the Commission extended the billing requirement in section 64.2401(b), i.e., that “[c]harges contained on telephone bills must be accompanied by a brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language description of the service or services rendered,” to CMRS providers. Truth- in-Billing and Billing Format, Nat’l Ass’n of State Util. Consumer Advocates’ Pet. For Declaratory Ruling Regarding Truth-in-Billing, CC Docket No. 98-170, CG Docket 04-208, Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 6448, 6456-58, paras. 16-20 (2005) (Second Truth-in-Billing Order), vacated in part, Nat’l Ass’n of State Util. Consumer Advocates v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.), modified, 468 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2006) (invalidating preemption of certain state requirements for wireless bills). At present, sections 64.2401(a)(2), (a)(3), (c), and (f) do not apply to CMRS providers as defined in section 20.9 of our rules, or to other providers of mobile service as defined in section 20.7 of our rules. See 47 CFR § 64.2400(b)(1). 16 In the First Truth-in-Billing Order, the Commission stated, “we adopt broad, binding principles to promote truth- in-billing, rather than mandate detailed rules that would rigidly govern the details or format of carrier billing practices.” First Truth-in-Billing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 7498, para. 9. The Commission reiterated its use of broad principles adopted in the First Truth-in-Billing Order in the Second Truth-in-Billing Order. Second Truth-in-Billing Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6450, para. 4. 17 First Truth-in-Billing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 7509, para. 28. 18 First Truth-in-Billing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 7533-34, para. 65. The Commission also required each carrier to make its business address available upon request to consumers. Id. at 7534, para. 65. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 on the bill, including toll-free numbers.19 In response to continued concerns about unauthorized third- party charges billed to consumers, the Commission adopted additional billing rules for wireline carriers in 2012.20 There, the Commission required wireline carriers that offer blocking of third-party charges to clearly and conspicuously notify consumers of this option on their bills, websites, and at the point of sale and to place third-party charges in a distinct section separate from all carrier charges.21 Finally, in 2018, the Commission codified the prohibition against placing unauthorized charges on bills (i.e., cramming) that it had enforced under section 201(b) of the Act.22 8. Cramming typically involved third parties placing unauthorized charges on consumer telephone bills at a time when wireline billing carriers allowed third parties to place their charges on the carrier’s bills.23 As the Commission described in the 2012 Cramming Order, carriers were compensated for third party billing and received additional compensation from third parties for each consumer complaint or inquiry they handled regarding unauthorized charges.24 Specifically, pursuant to a contract, the billing aggregator or vendor would provide the carrier with the consumer’s telephone number, the amount to be charged, requests that the charge be placed on the consumer’s telephone bill, and proof of consumer authorization was not generally provided to or required by the carrier.25 The vendor would compensate the billing aggregator and the carrier for their services.26 The carrier also was compensated by the vendor or the billing aggregator for the billing-and-collection service it provided.27 Changes in billing practices and the marketplace for third party services may have rendered this approach 19 47 CFR § 64.2401. The rules also require wireline carriers to separate charges by service provider where charges for two or more carriers appear on the same telephone bill and to distinguish on telephone bills between “deniable” and “non-deniable” charges, i.e., a non-deniable charge is a charge for which non-payment for service would not result in termination of the consumer’s basic local service. 47 CFR § 64.2401(a)(2) and (c). In addition, the rules require carriers to “make a business address available upon request from a consumer.” Id. § 64.2401(d). 20 Id. 21 The rules also require wireline carriers to provide separate totals for carrier and non-carrier charges. See Empowering Consumers to Prevent and Detect Billing for Unauthorized Charges (“Cramming”); Consumer Information and Disclosure; Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CG Docket Nos. 11-116 and 09-158, CC Docket No. 98-170, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 4436, 4455, para. 48 (2012) (2012 Cramming Order); 47 CFR § 64.2401(f). 22 See 2018 Slamming Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5781, para. 24. The Commission previously sought comment on modifying the truth-in-billing rules to prohibit carriers from assessing separate Telephone Access Charges, such as Subscriber Line Charges and Access Recovery Charges. Eliminating Ex Ante Pricing Regulation and Tariffing of Telephone Access Charges, WC Docket No. 20-71, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3165 (2020). More recently, the Wireline Competition Bureau invited parties to refresh the record on the issues raised in that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Parties Asked to Refresh the Record on Telephone Access Charges Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 20-71, Public Notice, DA 25-508 (WCB June 11, 2025). 23 2012 Cramming Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4439-40 paras. 6-8; 47 CFR § 64.2401(f) (addressing the blocking of third-party charges. As the Commission explained in the 2012 Cramming Order, the wireline telephone companies’ practice of placing third-party charges on their own bills to their consumers is the “root cause” of the problem, as this practice enables fraud in the form of cramming and attracts fraudsters. 2012 Cramming Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4452, para. 41. 24 2012 Cramming Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4453, para. 43. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 anachronistic. Coupled with the decrease in slamming, which often led to cramming,28 it appears that cramming is no longer a significant problem for consumers. The Commission has not taken an enforcement action for billing since 2016, and that was based on activity that occurred primarily in 2013.29 III. DISCUSSION 9. In this Notice, we seek comment on whether slamming, billing comprehension, and cramming remain a consumer protection problem. If there is still a need for rules, we propose and seek comment on modernizing and simplifying the rules while preserving the core consumer protections. We believe the current rules are outdated and highly prescriptive, and may stifle innovation without benefiting consumers. We also propose to consolidate the rules into a single rule section. A. Unified Approach 10. We propose to adopt a unified approach to our slamming and billing rules to favor rules that are clear, enforceable, easy-to-understand and implement, and that do not unnecessarily impede innovation that benefits consumers. 11. Our existing slamming and billing rules, which contain a slew of highly-prescriptive and inflexible requirements, risk stifling innovation that can help consumers either by, for example, discouraging innovative billing mechanisms that consumers may prefer or by making switching to a new provider an overly-cumbersome and annoying process. The rules may also be outdated due to changes in the telephone service market or technology more generally. For example, USTelecom, in its Project Delete comments, notes that our existing billing rules require carriers’ paper bills to list a toll-free number for the carrier, even though this requirement does not apply to electronic bills.30 Such a requirement, they argue, “imposes unnecessary staffing costs given that appropriate contact information is freely available on the Internet.”31 12. As a threshold matter, we seek comment on whether our slamming rules remain necessary. The Commission promulgated these rules decades ago when consumers frequently had separate local and interexchange carriers and when slamming was a significant consumer issue. Slamming no longer appears to be a consumer problem, yet our current rules prescribe detailed methods of proving consumer consent to a switch. Are the consumer harms that gave rise to the rules still enough of a problem to justify the rules? Are consumers protected in other ways, e.g., through state requirements or contract remedies? What are the harms of continuing to keep the rules in terms of compliance costs and to innovation in billing and pricing? Are there other costs to keeping the rules, such as impeding consumer 28 In many cases, an unauthorized charge was the result of an unsuccessful (or cancelled) slam, when the consumer remained with the preferred interexchange carrier, or returned to the preferred carrier after discovering the slam, but the slamming carrier assessed a recurring charge for the unauthorized long distance service, despite not providing any service. See, e.g., Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 5517, 5523-26, paras. 15-16 (2014) (Central Telecom NAL) (describing these unauthorized charges). 29 See, e.g., Central Telecom Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10407-08, paras. 36-38; Central Telecom NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5535-36 (listing dates in the Appendix); Consumer Telcom Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 10450-51, paras. 35-37; Consumer Telcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 17196, 17213 (2013) (listing dates in the Appendix). In 2019, the Commission sought renewed comment on the billing rules, with a focus on whether to extend them to VoIP service, and whether to require separation of government mandated charges from others. CGB Seeks to Refresh the Record on Truth-in-Billing Rules to Ensure Protections for All Consumers of Voice Services, CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 12202 (CGB 2019). The Commission did not take action pursuant to that public notice, and the two proceedings referenced in it remain pending. 30 See Comments of USTelecom—the Broadband Association, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 20 (Apr. 11, 2025). 31 Id. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 choice and reducing competition? Can we eliminate the slamming rules and still enforce section 258’s requirement that carriers “submit or execute a change in a subscriber’s selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service . . . in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.”32 13. Likewise, we seek comment on whether our billing rules remain necessary. The Commission promulgated many of these rules more than a quarter century ago, at a time when confusion about bills and the possibility of third-party scam charges were much more prominent, along with the slamming that the rules made easier to detect. Yet these rules remain on our books, imposing bill requirements that may have outlived their use. Are the consumer harms that gave rise to the rules still enough of a problem to justify bill regulation? Are consumers protected in other ways, e.g., through state requirements or contract remedies, that suggest they no longer need federal rules, or at least Commission rules, to protect them? What are the harms of continuing to keep the billing rules in terms of compliance costs and to innovation in billing and pricing? Are there other consumer protection issues that the Commission may need to consider if it no longer requires prescriptive billing formats? Do carriers still include third party charges on their bills and if so, how often are consumers signing up for services that can be billed in this way? 14. If we conclude that our slamming rules and our billing rules remain necessary, we seek comment below on proposals to modernize and streamline those rules in order to protect consumers, promote innovation and competition, and avoid imposing unnecessary costs or regulatory burdens on carriers. In addition to the rule language itself, we propose to consolidate both subjects into a single rule section. We believe the close relationship between slamming and billing lends itself to rule consolidation and would make it easier for providers and consumers to understand the requirements without sifting through different sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. Under this proposal, we would consolidate the rules in a single subpart that is titled “Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Charges and Provider Switches.” Would this make compliance with both sets of rules easier? Would it help consumers to more easily understand the rules’ related protections? 15. Does our proposed consolidation promote our goal of rules that are clear, enforceable, easy- to-understand and implement, and that do not unnecessarily impede innovation that benefits consumers? Are there other ways we might reorganize the rules to serve the same goals? Are there other rules that could be consolidated into this subsection to further promote these principles? Would a consolidated and streamlined approach better reflect both current market offerings and the way consumers receive communications services? Are there disparate compliance burdens between large and small carriers that necessitate additional rules changes? B. Slamming 16. If the record were to demonstrate that the slamming rules are no longer necessary, we propose to modernize and streamline the current rules consistent with the statutory requirements of section 258. Specifically, we propose to replace the prescriptive rules for verifying consumer switches with a simple requirement that would ensure consumers authorize switches, but also give providers flexibility in how they demonstrate that authorization. We propose to eliminate the rules related to Third Party Verification, Letters of Agency, an electronic authorization (a call to a toll-free number that records the caller’s originating automatic number identification), and state-enacted verification procedures applicable to intrastate service.33 17. We also propose to eliminate our requirement that providers ensure consumers can stop, or 32 47 U.S.C. § 258(a) (emphasis added). 33 47 CFR §§ 64.1120(c), 64.1130. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 “freeze,” any attempt to switch their preferred interexchange carrier.34 We do so because wireline slamming appears to be a waning consumer issue and thus detailed authorization rules no longer appear necessary. Second, we believe that overly-prescriptive rules on how exactly a provider can prove switch authorization might inhibit authorized switches by making the process cumbersome and annoying for consumers. The current rules are now decades old and may no longer align with how consumers prefer to communicate with service providers. We seek comment on these views and proposals. 18. In addition, we propose to delete “Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, for resolution of the complaint” from section 64.1150(b). This language is not necessary because informal complaints are filed with the Commission, generally through its website, and, although CGB traditionally processes such complaints, they could be processed elsewhere.35 We also propose to delete sections 64.1150(e) and 64.1160(e) and replace those sections with a new section 64.1110(c), as shown in Appendix A. These two sections consist of identical “Election of forum” language,36 and so we propose to replace the two subsections with one subsection that contains the same language. We seek comment on these proposals. 19. We also propose a streamlined rule for proving such consent. Specifically, we propose a new rule that states: No telecommunications carrier shall submit or execute a change on the behalf of a subscriber in the subscriber’s selection of a provider of telecommunications service except in accordance with carrier procedures reasonably designed to obtain verification of the consent of the subscriber. No telecommunications carrier may engage in any material misrepresentation to obtain a subscriber’s consent to change a provider of telecommunications service. In the event of a dispute, the provider must prove with clear and convincing evidence that it followed its procedures to verify that the switch was authorized and that the provider did not engage in any material misrepresentation to obtain such consent. Nothing in this section shall preclude any state commission from enforcing these procedures with respect to intrastate services. In sum, we propose to replace section 64.1120’s five subsections and many requirements and section 64.1130 with a single paragraph that prohibits a carrier from submitting or executing a provider change without proper authorization and states the clear and convincing strict evidentiary standard providers must meet,37 while maintaining the important requirement for consumer authorization and the prohibition against misrepresentation.38 20. Does our proposal achieve our goals of modernizing our rules while preserving consumer protection against unauthorized switches? Commenters opposing the proposed elimination of our verification rules should explain how such rules remain relevant and useful. Does the misrepresentation prohibition offer sufficient protection for consumers so that the comprehensive verification rules are 34 See id. § 64.1190. If we adopt this proposal, consumers would remain free to request a PIC freeze from their carriers. 35 Previously, such complaints were processed in the Common Carrier Bureau. See First Truth-in-Billing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 7494, n.4. 36 See 47 CFR §§ 64.1150(e), 64.1160(e). 37 We propose to delete section 64.2401(a)(4); the language we propose to eliminate is in proposed new section 64.1190(c). 38 47 CFR § 64.1120(a)(1)(i)(A). Many slamming complaints involved provider misrepresentation. For instance, a provider’s agent might tell a consumer that it represented a different provider. In the 2018 Slamming Order, the Commission codified a rule prohibiting material misrepresentation, including material omissions, in sales calls to protect consumers from slamming. 2018 Slamming Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5778-80, paras. 15-19. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 unnecessary?39 Are we correct that the current rules deter consumers who continue to subscribe to separate local and long distance landline service from switching from one preferred carrier to another? Would the proposed rule curtail current marketplace practices that benefit consumers? C. Truth-in-Billing 21. If the record demonstrates that billing rules remain necessary, we propose to modernize and simplify them. The Commission designed the rules to help consumers understand their bills and to deter slamming and cramming. As described above, these consumer harms appear to no longer be a significant consumer issue, yet the rules’ complexity may inhibit innovative billing structures and impose unnecessary regulatory burdens. 22. We thus propose to eliminate the requirements that bills contain a separate section for third party charges, that bills contain specific contact information, and that providers offering subscribers the option to block third-party charges must notify subscribers of this option and prominently disclose that to consumers on each telephone bill and at the point-of-sale and on carrier websites.40 We also propose to eliminate the “purpose” section of the rules as unnecessary.41 We further propose to eliminate the requirements in sections 64.2401(a)(2) and (c), because we believe that there is no longer a significant consumer issue of carrier bills containing billing for more than one carrier, or billing for non-carrier services. We seek comment on these proposals. 23. We believe that billing models have changed over the years and that third-party billing for telecommunications services is rare. Historically, most cramming on wireline bills involved third parties, billing for “telecommunications services” through a billing aggregator, who would forward third-party charges to the billing carrier; however, that billing situation appears to no longer exist.42 We therefore believe we no longer need to maintain third-party billing rules that may stifle innovation and prevent carriers from communicating information in ways that best meet consumer expectations. We seek comment on this view, along with the burdens that maintaining these rules would impose on carriers. 24. Next, we propose to revise the rules that prescribe several ways consumers can contact carriers to ask questions about billing. This section includes requirements to prominently display a toll- free telephone number on each paper bill and to provide a physical address upon request by a consumer.43 We believe much of consumer contact with carriers has evolved away from the use of toll-free numbers and physical mail, making this rule unnecessary. Moreover, to the extent there remains consumer demand for toll-free numbers, providers are free to include them in bills or other locations, such as on their websites. We seek comment on this view, including the burdens on providers of keeping these rules. 25. At the same time, we propose to retain the core of the billing rules and to streamline them. Specifically, we propose to simplify the requirements to specify that telephone bills must be clearly organized and contain clear and conspicuous disclosure of any information that the subscriber may need to make inquiries about, or contest, charges on the bill. The bill must also clearly and conspicuously identify any change in service provider, including identification of charges from any new service provider, and the name of the service provider associated with each charge and a brief, clear, non- 39 See 2018 Slamming Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5778, n.44 (explaining why a ban on material misrepresentation is a procedure, required by section 258(a) of the Act and as the court interpreted the term in AT&T v. FCC, 323 F.3d 1081, 1086 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (AT&T)). 40 See 47 CFR § 64.2401(a)(3), (d), (f). 41 Id. § 64.2400(a). 42 2012 Cramming Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4439-40, paras. 6-8. 43 47 CFR § 64.2401(d). The first sentence of section 64.2401(d) is being retained in new proposed section 64.1190(c)(1). Existing section 64.2401(d) does not require physical addresses to be included on bills; it only requires that a carrier “make a business address available upon request from a consumer.” 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 misleading, plain language description of the service or services rendered. We propose to retain our existing definition of “clear and conspicuous” as notice that would be apparent to the reasonable consumer.44 We also propose to retain our prohibition against unauthorized charges.45 26. We seek comment on these proposals. Would the proposed changes ensure that consumers receive the information they need to understand their bills and protect them from bogus charges? Would they give service providers sufficient flexibility in their billing practices to better serve customers? Do the Commission’s current rules deter providers from adopting improvements to billing systems for fear that such improvements will not meet requirements of the billing rules? Are there other changes we should consider adopting, either in addition to or instead of this proposal? We seek comment on these proposals. 27. Does our existing definition of “clear and conspicuous” provide sufficient clarity for consumers and providers? Alternatively, should we adopt the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) definition of clear and conspicuous? The FTC defines clear and conspicuous to be a notice that “is reasonably understandable and designed to call attention to the nature and significance of the information in the notice.”46 The FTC definition also includes subsections defining “reasonably understandable” and “designed to call attention,” and explains “notices on websites or within-application messaging.”47 Are there other parts of the FTC rule that we should consider? D. Costs and Benefits 28. In this Notice we propose to consolidate and simplify the slamming and billing rules and remove detailed requirements that may no longer be necessary due to changes in the telecommunications industry and consumer preferences. If we were to adopt these proposals, the rules’ essential consumer protections would remain. Further, providers would be granted more flexibility to innovate their processes should they decide to do so. 29. We do not anticipate that the proposed changes would impose any additional cost to consumers, particularly because we propose to retain the important prohibitions against misrepresentation and unauthorized charges. We have not received consumer complaints alleging violations of the slamming and billing rules recently,48 and detailed requirements may no longer be necessary to protect consumers and therefore, it seems unlikely that streamlining these rules as proposed would harm consumers. Further, we do not expect these proposals to increase carrier costs. Carrier practices that satisfy the current rules would comply with our proposed changes. That is, a provider would not need to revise its bills or processes to comply with our proposed changes. 30. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that the costs associated with the proposed rules are negligible and that the benefits associated with the proposed rules, which would consist of fewer requirements for carriers to follow when providing information on bills and when implementing a carrier change, outweigh the costs. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion and more generally on the benefits and costs associated with adopting the proposals set forth in this Notice. Comments should be accompanied by specific data and analysis supporting claimed costs and benefits. 44 47 CFR § 64.2401(e). This subsection would be renumbered as 47 CFR § 64.1190(d). See App. A. 45 47 CFR § 64.2401(g). This subsection would be renumbered as 47 CFR § 64.1190(e). See App. A. 46 16 CFR § 318.2. 47 Id. 48 See notes [14] and [24], supra, explaining that the most recent Commission enforcement action against a carrier for slamming and cramming was in 2021 (for activity that occurred in 2017-2018) and for billing violations was in 2016 (for activity that occurred in 2013). 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 E. Legal Authority 31. We believe we have the legal authority to make the changes discussed in this Notice under sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act. The Commission has based its slamming, cramming, and billing rules on these statutory provisions in the past.49 Section 201(b) prohibits telecommunications carriers from engaging in unjust and unreasonable practices,50 which the Commission has found includes both deceptive marketing practices as well as deceptive billing practices.51 Section 258 prohibits carriers executing a switch unless they do so “in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.”52 32. We tentatively conclude, for example, that the proposed rule changes—specifically, the proposed revisions to section 64.1120— would establish “verification procedures” consistent with the authority specified in section 258.53 In AT&T, the D.C. Circuit explained that a “procedure” as required by the text of the statute is “a particular course of action” or “a particular step adopted for doing or accomplishing something.”54 In the 2018 Slamming Order, the Commission explained that “a sales call is often an important ‘step’ in the carrier change process, and that a misrepresentation in this step can fatally undermine the subsequent steps (i.e. verification procedures) . . . . Thus, the accuracy of the sales call is a critical ‘step’ or ‘course of action’ intertwined with the process of confirming that the consumer’s consent has been obtained.”55 We tentatively conclude that the proposed rule relating to misrepresentation is a procedure consistent with AT&T and the 2018 Slamming Order. Do commenters agree? Are there other sources of authority on which we could rely to adopt any of the rules we discuss in this Notice? IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 33. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, as amended (RFA),56 requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”57 Accordingly, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and policy changes in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. 49 See, e.g., 2018 Slamming Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5778, para. 16. 50 See 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). 51 See, e.g., Advantage Telecommunications Corp., Forfeiture Order, 32 FCC Rcd 3723, 3725, para. 7 (2017); Preferred Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 13791, paras. 17-18; First Truth-in-Billing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 7503- 09, paras. 20-27. 52 See 47 U.S.C. § 258(a). 53 Section 258 of the Act made it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to “submit or execute a change in a subscriber’s selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.” 47 U.S.C. § 258(a) 54 AT&T, 323 F.3d at 1087. 55 2018 Slamming Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5778 & n.44. 56 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-6233. The RFA has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 57 5 U.S.C. § 605(b); see also id. § 603. 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 34. This Notice may propose new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on these information collection requirements. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. C. Filing Requirements—Comments and Replies 35. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and replies on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).58 • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. o Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. o Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC’s mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. o Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. o Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street, NE, Washington, DC 20554. • People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530. D. Ex Parte Rules 36. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.59 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the 58 See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 59 47 CFR § 1.1206. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). Written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must, when feasible, be filed through the electronic comment filing system in the docket established for this proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules. E. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act 37. Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.60 F. Additional Information 38. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Mika Savir, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at mika.savir@fcc.gov or (202) 418-0384. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 39. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1-4, 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201(b), 258, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Office of the Secretary, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 60 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(4). The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-9 (2023), amended the Administrative Procedure Act to add a requirement to publish a short summary, in plain language, of each notice of proposed rulemaking. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 APPENDIX A Proposed Rules The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 to read as follows: PART 64 – MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. Amend the title of Subpart K to read as follows: Subpart K— Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Charges and Provider Switches 2. Amend § 64.1110 by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows: (c) The Federal Communications Commission will not adjudicate a complaint filed pursuant to §§ 1.719 or §§ 1.720-1.740 of this chapter, involving an alleged unauthorized change, as defined by § 64.1100(e), while a complaint based on the same set of facts is pending with a state commission. 3. Amend § 64.1120 by replacing the entire paragraph with the following: No telecommunications carrier shall submit or execute a change on the behalf of a subscriber in the subscriber’s selection of a provider of telecommunications service except in accordance with carrier procedures reasonably designed to obtain verification of the consent of the subscriber. No telecommunications carrier may engage in any material misrepresentation to obtain a subscriber’s consent to change a provider of telecommunications service. In the event of a dispute, the provider must prove with clear and convincing evidence that it followed its procedures to verify that the switch was authorized and that the provider did not engage in any material misrepresentation to obtain such consent. Nothing in this section shall preclude any state commission from enforcing these procedures with respect to intrastate services. 4. Delete § 64.1130 in entirety. 5. Amend § 64.1150 by deleting “’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, for resolution of the complaint” from paragraph (b) to read as follows: (b) Referral of complaint. Any carrier, executing, authorized, or allegedly unauthorized, that is informed by a subscriber or an executing carrier of an unauthorized carrier change shall direct that subscriber either to the state commission or, where the state commission has not opted to administer these rules, to the Federal Communications Commission. Carriers shall also inform the subscriber that he or she may contact and seek resolution from the alleged unauthorized carrier and, in addition, may contact the authorized carrier. 6. Amend § 64.1150 by deleting “through 64.1130” from paragraph (d) to read as follows: (d) Proof of verification. Not more than 30 days after notification of the complaint, or such lesser time as is required by the state commission if a matter is brought before a state commission, the alleged unauthorized carrier shall provide to the relevant government agency a copy of any valid proof of verification of the carrier change. This proof of verification must contain clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change, as that term is defined in §§ 64.1120. The relevant governmental agency will determine whether an unauthorized change, as defined by § 64.1100(e), has occurred using such proof and any evidence supplied by the subscriber. Failure by the carrier to respond or provide proof of verification will be presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. 7. Amend § 64.1150 by deleting (e) in entirety. 8. Amend § 64.1160 by deleting (e) in entirety, and renumbering (f) and (g) as (e) and (f). 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 9. Amend § 64.1190 to read as follows: (a) These rules shall apply to all telecommunications common carriers and to all bills containing charges for intrastate or interstate services, except as follows: Sections 64.1190(c)(2) and (3) shall not apply to providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Service as defined in § 20.9 of this chapter, or to other providers of mobile service as defined in § 20.7 of this chapter, unless the Commission determines otherwise in a further rulemaking.. (b) Preemptive effect of rules. The requirements in this subpart are not intended to preempt the adoption or enforcement of consistent truth-in-billing requirements by the states. (c) Telephone Billing Requirements – (1) Telephone bills shall be clearly organized and must contain clear and conspicuous disclosure of any information that the subscriber may need to make inquiries about, or contest, charges on the bill. (2) Telephone bills must clearly and conspicuously identify any change in service provider, including identification of charges from any new service provider. (3) Charges contained on telephone bills must be accompanied by a brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language description of the service or services rendered, and the name of the service provider associated with each charge. The description must be sufficiently clear in presentation and specific enough in content so that customers can accurately assess that the services for which they are billed correspond to those that they have requested and received, and that the costs assessed for those services conform to their understanding of the price charged. (d) Definition of clear and conspicuous. For purposes of this section, “clear and conspicuous” means notice that would be apparent to the reasonable consumer. (e) Prohibition against unauthorized charges. Carriers shall not place or cause to be placed on any telephone bill charges that have not been authorized by the subscriber. 10. Delete § 64.2400. 11. Delete § 64.2401. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 APPENDIX B Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2 In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3 A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 2. In the Notice, the Commission proposes to streamline the slamming and Truth-in-Billing (billing) rules. More specifically, the Commission proposes to reduce some of the requirements for carrier change verification under the slamming rules, while keeping the essential parts of these rules for consumer protection. The streamlining the Commission proposes is appropriate due to evolving technology and consumers’ migration away from traditional local and long distance service and increased adoption of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service or Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) as their all-distance sole telephone service. The Commission proposes streamlining the billing rules to eliminate procedures that are no longer needed. Existing rules required providers ensure that consumers' telephone bills are clearly organized, display the name of each service provider, and contain descriptions of charges that are brief, clear, and non-misleading. Through this proposed streamlining, the Commission seeks continued protection of consumers from unauthorized carrier changes and charges while ensuring the information on their bills is clear so that they can make informed choices. B. Legal Basis 3. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4, 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201(b), 258. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.4 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”5 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.”6 A “small business 1 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). 2 Id. § 603(a). 3 Id. 4 Id. § 603(b)(3). 5 Id. § 601(6). 6 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.7 5. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions.8 First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, in general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.9 These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses.10 Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant their field.11 While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees.12 Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand.13 Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.14 6. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers15 is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard.16 Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.17 The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.18 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.19 Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 7 15 U.S.C. § 632. 8 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6). 9 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions About Small Business (July 23, 2024), https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Small-Business_2024- 508.pdf. 10 Id. 11 5 U.S.C. § 601(4). 12 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Small Business Facts, Spotlight on Nonprofits (July 2019), https://advocacy.sba.gov/2019/07/25/small-business-facts-spotlight-on-nonprofits/. 13 5 U.S.C. § 601(5). 14 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Census of Governments –Organization, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/gus/2022-governments.html, tables 1-11. 15 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 16 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111). 17 Fixed Local Exchange Service Providers include the following types of providers: Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VOIP Providers, Non-Interconnected VOIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, Local Resellers, and Other Local Service Providers. 18 Id. 19 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, (continued….) 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 250 employees.20 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers.21 Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.22 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 7. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers23 is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard.24 The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.25 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.26 Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.27 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers.28 Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.29 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small entities. 8. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include several types of competitive local exchange service providers.30 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 20 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 21 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 22 Id. 23 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 24 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111). 25 Id. 26 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 27 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 28 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 29 Id. 30 Competitive Local Exchange Service Providers include the following types of providers: Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VOIP Providers, Non-Interconnected VOIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, Local Resellers, and Other Local Service Providers. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 Wired Telecommunications Carriers31 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.32 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.33 Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.34 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local service providers.35 Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.36 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 9. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers37 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard.38 The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.39 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.40 Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.41 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.42 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry can be considered small entities. 10. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a 31 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 32 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111). 33 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 34 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 35 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 36 Id. 37 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 38 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111). 39 Id. 40 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 41 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 42 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 SBA small business size standard.43 The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households.44 Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure.45 Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry.46 The SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.47 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire year.48 Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.49 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 207 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local resale services.50 Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.51 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 11. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers52 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure.53 Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry.54 The SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.55 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire year.56 Of that number, 1,375 firms operated 43 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517911 Telecommunications Resellers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517911&year=2017&details=517911. 44 Id. 45 Id. 46 Id. 47 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517911 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517121). 48 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517911, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517911&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 49 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 50 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 51 Id. 52 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517911 Telecommunications Resellers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517911&year=2017&details=517911. 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517911 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517121). 56 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517911, (continued….) 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 with fewer than 250 employees.57 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 457 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll services.58 Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 438 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.59 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 12. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers60 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard.61 The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.62 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.63 Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.64 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of other toll services.65 Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.66 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 13. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves.67 Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.68 The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517911&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 57 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 58 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 59 Id. 60 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 61 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111). 62 Id. 63 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 64 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 65 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 66 Id. 67 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312. 68 Id. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 1,500 or fewer employees.69 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.70 Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.71 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services.72 Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.73 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 14. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.”74 Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual receipts as small.75 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year.76 Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million.77 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard most satellite telecommunications service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard. 15. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation.78 This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 69 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112). 70 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 71 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 72 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 73 Id. 74 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410. 75 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410. 76 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 77 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices. 78 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517919 All Other Telecommunications,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details=517919. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.79 Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.80 The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small.81 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.82 Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million.83 Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small. 16. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks.84 Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband Internet services.85 By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.86 Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.87 17. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.88 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.89 Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 79 Id. 80 Id. 81 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517810). 82 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517919, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 83 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices. 84 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 85 Id. 86 Id. 87 Fixed Local Service Providers include the following types of providers: Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VOIP Providers, Non-Interconnected VOIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Local Resellers fall into another U.S. Census Bureau industry group and therefore data for these providers is not included in this industry. 88 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111). 89 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie w=false. At this time, the 2022 Economic Census data is not available. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC2507-05 with fewer than 250 employees.90 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services.91 Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.92 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 18. The Notice includes proposals to streamline the Commission’s rules. The proposals do not impose any additional burdens on small entities; instead, the proposed rules, if adopted, would permit small entities more flexibility and fewer requirements when effecting a carrier change or billing a customer for telecommunications services. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 19. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities.93 The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”94 20. In the Notice, the Commission is proposing to reduce regulatory burdens on all carriers, including small entities. The Commission is proposing to streamline the slamming and billing rules for all carriers; however, providers would still be in compliance with the rules if they followed the existing rules instead of the proposed streamlined rules. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are additional regulatory reforms that are needed to address disparate compliance burdens between large and small carriers with respect to the existing rules. F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules 21. None. 90 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 91 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 92 Id. 93 Id. § 603(c). 94 Id. § 603(c)(1)-(4). 9