Before the

Federal Communications Commission

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | IC No. 01-S52010             |
|                                  | * |                              |
| AT&T Corporation                 | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Complaint Regarding              | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Unauthorized Change of           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Subscriber's Telecommunications  | ) |                              |
| Carrier                          | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: July 12, 2001 Released: July 13, 2001**

By the Chief, Consumer Information Network Division, Consumer
Information Bureau:

1.  In this Order, we consider the complaint filed by Andres Hark
    (Complainant)[^1] alleging that AT&T Corporation (AT&T) changed
    Complainant's long distance service without obtaining authorization
    and verification from Complainant in violation of the Commission's
    rules.[^2] We conclude that AT&T has responded fully to the
    Complainant's complaint and has taken appropriate action to resolve
    the complaint.

2.  In December 1998, the Commission released the *Section 258 Order* in
    which it adopted rules to implement section 258 of the
    Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act).[^3] Section 258 prohibits
    the practice of "slamming," the submission or execution of an
    unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of
    telephone exchange service or telephone toll service.[^4] In the
    *Section 258 Order*, the Commission adopted aggressive new rules
    designed to take the profit out of slamming, broadened the scope of
    the slamming rules to encompass all carriers, and modified its
    existing requirements for the authorization and verification of
    preferred carrier changes. The rules require, among other things,
    that a carrier receive individual subscriber consent before a
    carrier change may occur.[^5] Pursuant to section 258, carriers are
    absolutely barred from changing a customer\'s preferred local or
    long distance carrier without first complying with one of the
    Commission\'s verification procedures.[^6] Specifically, a carrier
    must: (1) obtain the subscriber\'s written or electronically signed
    authorization in a format that meets the requirements of section
    64.1130 authorization; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber
    via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of
    confirming orders electronically; or (3) utilize an independent
    third party to verify the subscriber\'s order.[^7]

3.  The Commission also has adopted liability rules. These rules require
    the carrier to absolve the subscriber where the subscriber has not
    paid his or her bill. In that context, if the subscriber has not
    already paid charges to the unauthorized carrier, the subscriber is
    absolved of liability for charges imposed by the unauthorized
    carrier for service provided during the first 30 days after the
    unauthorized change.[^8] Where the subscriber has paid charges to
    the unauthorized carrier, the Commission's rules require that the
    unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized
    carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the
    subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the
    unauthorized carrier.[^9]

4.  We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2001 alleging that
    Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint
    Communications Company L.P., (Sprint) to AT&T without Complainant's
    authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our
    rules,[^10] we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on

June 7, 2001. [^11] AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges
assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability
rules.[^12] Based on the information before us, we therefore find that
the complaint referenced herein has been resolved.[^13]

5.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 258 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 258, and
    sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaint filed by Andres Hark against
    AT&T IS RESOLVED.

6.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Jack L. Forsythe, Chief

Consumer Information Network Division

Consumer Information Bureau

[^1]: ^?^ Andres Hark, Informal Complaint No. IC-S52010 (filed May 11,
    2001).

[^2]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100 -- 64.1190.

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 258(a); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
    104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996); *Implementation of the Subscriber
    Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of
    Consumers' Long Distance Carriers*, CC Docket No. 94-129, Second
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC
    Rcd 1508 (1998) (*Section 258 Order), stayed in part, MCI WorldCom
    v. FCC*, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999); First Order on
    Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158 (2000); *stay lifted, MCI WorldCom
    v. FCC*, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2000); Third Report and
    Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996 (2000),
    Errata, DA No. 00-2163 (rel. Sept. 25, 2000), Erratum, DA No.
    00-2192 (rel. Oct. 4, 2000), Order, FCC 01-67 (rel. Feb. 22, 2001);
    *reconsideration pending*. Prior to the adoption of section 258, the
    Commission had taken various steps to address the slamming problem.
    *See*, *e.g.*, *Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes
    of Consumers\' Long Distance Carriers*, CC Docket No. 94-129, Report
    and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995), *stayed in part*, 11 FCC Rcd 856
    (1995); *Policies and Rules Concerning Changing Long Distance
    Carrier*s, CC Docket No. 91-64, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992),
    *reconsideration denied*, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); Investigation of
    Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs, CC Docket No. 83-1145, Phase
    I, 101 F.C.C.2d 911, 101 F.C.C.2d 935, *reconsideration* *denied*,
    102 F.C.C.2d 503 (1985).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c). Section 64.1130 details the
    requirements for letter of agency form and content for written or
    electronically signed authorizations. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130.

[^8]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160. Any charges imposed by
    the unauthorized carrier on the subscriber for service provided
    after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber to the
    authorized carrier at the rates the subscriber was paying to the
    authorized carrier at the time of the unauthorized change. *Id.*

[^9]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1170.

[^10]:
    > 47 C.F.R. § 1.719 (Commission procedure for informal complaints
    > filed pursuant to section 258 of the Act); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150
    > (procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in preferred
    > carrier).

[^11]: ^?^ AT&T Corporation Response to Informal Complaint No.
    IC-S52010, (received June 7, 2001).

[^12]:
    > *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160.

[^13]: If Complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution of this
    complaint, Complainant may file a formal complaint with the
    Commission pursuant to section 1.721 of Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 1.721. Such filing will be deemed to relate back to the
    filing date of Complainant's informal complaint so long as the
    formal complaint is filed within 45 days from the date this order is
    mailed or delivered electronically to Complainant. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.719.