Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-93
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re: GPSPS, Inc., File No.: EB-TCD-14-00016988, NAL/Acct. No.: 201532170011, FRN: 
0022128334.
Our slamming rules are intended to protect consumers from unauthorized changes to their 
telephone service provider.
1
  So a long-distance reseller trying to get a new customer must, for example, 
receive authorization for each “type” of service (“local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll”),
2
make sure authorization is “from the subscriber,”
3
and verify that authorization using an “appropriately 
qualified independent third party” or another prescribed channel.
4
But these rules weren’t enough to protect GPSPS’s victims.  Consider Ms. Duenas, whom GPSPS 
told that her husband had authorized GPSPS’s long-distance service—even though he had been dead for 
seven years.
5
  Or consider Ms. Vega, who disputed GPSPS’s charges but was told that her father 
authorized them—even though he lives on another continent.
6
  Or consider the many consumers that 
explained to us how GPSPS had falsified and fabricated verification recordings to appear to comply with 
Commission rules.
7
This isn’t the first time our rules have failed.  We’ve seen a raft of consumer complaints about 
slamming in recent years, ranging from the egregious (“LDC staff did not return phone calls, hung up on 
callers, refused to take calls, and otherwise gave consumers the run-around.”
8
) to the outrageous 
(Advantage “coach[ed] [customers] on the third party verification . . . to just say ‘yes’ to everything that 
they said.”
9
) to the fraudulent (“USTLD’s sales representatives at times tricked consumers into believing 
that they were calling on behalf of the consumers’ existing providers.”
10
).  Indeed, fly-by-night operators 
have figured out how to profit from skirting our rules rather than complying with them.
How can we protect consumers?  Enforcement actions like this one are a good step, but more is 
needed.  Our rules already offer one avenue for relief: the preferred carrier freeze, which lets consumers 
opt out of these deceptive marketing practices.
11
  But consumers shouldn’t have to opt out of a market for 
fraud.  My proposal:  Let’s open a proceeding and change this rule to make consumer protection not an 
option, but the default.
                                                     
1
See 47 U.S.C. § 258; 47 C.F.R. Part 65, Subpart K.
2
47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(b).
3
47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(a)(1)(i).
4
47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3).
5
GPSPS, Inc., File No.: EB-TCD-14-00016988, NAL/Acct. No.: 201532170011, FRN: 0022128334, Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 30 FCC Rcd 2522, 2525, para. 9 (2015).
6
Id.
7
Id. at 2525, para. 10.
8
LDC Telecommunications Inc., File No.: EB-TCD-12-00000420, NAL/Acct. No.: 201232170010, FRN: 
0004337556, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 10789, 10798 (2012) (Statement of 
Commissioner Ajit Pai, Approving in Part and Dissenting in Part).
9
Advantage Telecommunications Corp., File No.: EB-TCD-12-00004803, NAL/Acct. No.: 201332170013, FRN: 
0005077730, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 6843, 6848, para. 12 (2013).
10
U.S. Telecom Long Distance, Inc., File No.: EB-TCD-13-00008959, NAL/Acct. No. 201432170002, FRN: 
0004964417, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 823, 826, para. 8 (2014).
11
47 C.F.R. § 64.1190.