Before the

Federal Communications Commission

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | IC No. 02-S79792             |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Sprint Communications Company    | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Complaint Regarding              | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Unauthorized Change of           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Subscriber's Telecommunications  | ) |                              |
| Carrier                          | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: November 17, 2003 Released: November 20, 2003**

By the Acting Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau:

1.  In this Order, we consider the complaint[^1] alleging that Sprint
    Communications Company (Sprint), changed complainant's
    telecommunications service provider without obtaining authorization
    and verification from Complainant in violation of the Commission's
    rules.[^2] We conclude that Sprint's actions did not result in an
    unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
    provider and we deny Complainant's 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] Carriers should note that our actions in
    this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional
    action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act.[^10]

We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2002, alleging that
Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to
Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719
and 64.1150 of our rules,[^11] we notified Sprint of the complaint and
Sprint responded on October 3, 2003.[^12] Although we conclude that
Sprint did not obtain the subscriber's actual authorization to change
subscriber's preferred telecommunications carrier, the United State
Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit has interpreted Section
258 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require only that a carrier
follow the Commission's verification procedures and not to require
actual authorization by the subscriber.[^13] We find that Sprint has
produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier
change for each Complainant.[^14]

4.  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 against Sprint IS
    DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Nancy A. Stevenson, Acting Deputy Chief

> Policy Division
>
> Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau

[^1]: ^?^ Informal Complaint No. IC-02-S79792, August 6, 2002.

[^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]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503.

[^11]: ^?^ 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).

[^12]:
    > Sprint's Response to Informal Complaint No. 02-S79792, October 3,
    > 2003.

[^13]: ^?^ *See AT&T Corp. v. FCC*, 323 F.3d 1081, 1086 (D.C. Cir.
    2003). *See also*

    47 C.F.R. § 64.1100(h) for the definition of "subscriber."

[^14]: 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 the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 1.721. Such filing will be deemed to relate back to the
    filing date of Complainants' 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.