*Pages 1--4 from  Microsoft Word - 60380.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2071 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Sprint  Communications  Company 
 Complaints  Regarding  Unauthorized  Change  of 
 Subscribers  Telecommunications  Carrier 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 IC  Nos.  03-  I0048333S  04-  S86610 
 04-  I0107399S  04-  I0129292S 


 ORDER  ON  RECONSIDERATION 
 Adopted:  October  18,  2006  Released:  October  19,  2006 
 By  the  Chief,  Consumer  &  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau: 
 1.  In  this  Order,  we  deny  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  Sprint  Communications  Co.,  L.  P.  (Sprint)  1  asking  us  to  reverse  a  finding  that  Sprint  changed  Complainants  telecommunications 
 service  providers  in  violation  of  the  Commissions  rules  by  failing  to  obtain  proper  authorization  and  verification.  2  On  reconsideration,  we  affirm  that  Sprints  actions  violated  the  Commissions  carrier 
 change  rules.  3 
 I.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  In  December  1998,  the  Commission  adopted  rules  prohibiting  the  practice  of  slamming,  the  submission  or  execution  of  an  unauthorized  change  in  a  subscribers  selection  of  a 
 provider  of  telephone  exchange  service  or  telephone  toll  service.  4  The  rules  were  designed  to  take  the  profit  out  of  slamming.  5  The  Commission  applied  the  rules  to  all  wireline  carriers,  6  and  modified  its 
 existing  requirements  for  the  authorization  and  verification  of  preferred  carrier  changes.  7 


 1  See  Petition  for  Reconsideration  of  Sprint  Communications  Co.,  LP.  (filed  Oct.  28,  2005)  (Petition)  seeking 
 reconsideration  of  Sprint  Communications  Company,  20  FCC  Rcd  15450  (2005)  (Division  Order),  issued  by  the  Consumer  Policy  Division  (Division),  Consumer  &  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau. 


 2  See  Division  Order,  20  FCC  Rcd  15450  (2005). 
 3  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  1100    64.  1190. 
 4  See  id.;  see  also  47  U.  S.  C.    258(  a). 
 5  See  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  Rulemaking,  14  FCC  Rcd  1508,  1512,  para. 


 4  (1998)  (Section  258  Order).  See  also  id.  at  1518-  19,  para.  13. 
 6  See  id.  at  1560,  para.  85.  CMRS  providers  were  exempted  from  the  verification  requirements.  See  Section  258 
 Order  at  1560-  61,  para.  85. 
 7  See  Section  258  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  1549,  para.  66. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2071 
 2 
 3.  The  rules  require  that  a  submitting  carrier  receive  individual  subscriber  consent  before  a  carrier  change  may  occur.  8  Specifically,  a  carrier  must:  (1)  obtain  the  subscriber's  written  or 
 electronically  signed  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.  9 
 4.  The  Commission  also  adopted  liability  rules  for  carriers  that  engage  in  slamming.  10  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.  11  Where  the  subscriber  has  paid  charges  to  the  unauthorized  carrier,  the 
 unauthorized  carrier  must  pay  150%  of  those  charges  to  the  authorized  carrier,  and  the  authorized  carrier  must  refund  or  credit  the  subscriber  50%  of  all  charges  paid  by  the  subscriber  to  the  unauthorized 
 carrier.  12 
 5.  The  Commission  received  various  complaints  alleging  that  Complainants  telecommunications  service  providers  had  been  changed  from  their  authorized  carriers  to  Sprint  without 
 Complainants  authorization.  13  Pursuant  to  Sections  1.719  and  64.1150  of  the  Commissions  rules,  14  the  Division  notified  Sprint  of  the  complaints.  15  In  its  responses,  Sprint  stated  that  authorizations  were 
 received  and  confirmed  through  letters  of  agency  (LOAs).  16  The  Division  determined  that  Sprints  LOAs  were  illegible  and  that  Sprint  was  unable  to  provide  clear  copies.  Therefore,  the  Division  found  that 
 Sprint  failed  to  produce  clear  and  convincing  evidence  that  the  Complainants  authorized  carrier  changes  and,  thus,  that  Sprints  actions  resulted  in  unauthorized  changes  in  Complainants  telecommunications 
 service  providers.  17  Sprint  seeks  reconsideration  of  the  Division  Order. 


 8  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  1120.  See  also  47  U.  S.  C.    258(  a)  (barring  carriers  from  changing  a  customers  preferred 
 local  or  long  distance  carrier  without  first  complying  with  one  of  the  Commissions  verifier  procedures). 
 9  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. 
 10  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  1140,  64.1160-  70. 


 11  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). 


 12  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  1140,  64.1170. 
 13  See  Appendix  A. 
 14  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). 
 15  See  Appendix  A. 


 16  See  id. 
 17  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  1150(  d). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2071 
 3 
 II.  DISCUSSION 
 6.  Sprint  states  that  the  documents  reviewed  by  the  Commission  were  faxed,  scanned,  transmitted,  and  printed  many  times,  resulting  in  some  blurring  of  text.  18  However,  Sprint  contends  that 
 all  text  was  readily  legible  by  enlarging  the  document.  19  Further,  Sprint  states  that  it  provided,  at  the  Commissions  request,  a  typed,  verbatim  reproduction  of  the  text  in  dispute  to  the  Commission  on  August 
 5,  2005.  20  Thus,  Sprint  contends  that  the  LOAs  it  provided  constituted  valid  authorization  to  switch  Complainants  long  distance  service. 


 7.  Based  on  the  record  before  us,  we  affirm  the  Division  Order  and  deny  Sprints  Petition.  The  Commissions  rules  state  that  a  LOA  must  be  clearly  legible.  21  We  find  that  Sprint  did  not  submit 
 legible  LOAs.  Even  when  magnified  200  percent,  the  illegible  section  of  the  LOAs  originally  submitted  were  not  legible.  In  addition,  the  LOA  submitted  with  Sprints  Petition  in  its  original,  legal    size  still 
 contains  the  same  illegible  referenced  portion.  22  Simply  put,  the  LOAs  were  not  clear  when  Sprint  initially  submitted  them  with  its  original  responses  or  with  its  Petition;  thus,  there  was  no  error  with  the 
 Division  Orders  findings.  We  also  note  that  we  were  unable  to  determine  whether  the  copy  of  the  text  supplied  by  Sprint  included  the  same  language  as  in  the  LOAs  at  issue  here.  The  text  at  issue  in 
 Complaint  Nos.  IC  03-  I0048333S  and  IC  04-  I0129292S,  for  example,  contained  only  two  paragraphs  in  the  LOAs  as  originally  submitted  whereas  the  copy  of  the  text  submitted  by  Sprint  had  three  paragraphs. 
 Consequently,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  reverse  the  Division  Order. 
 III.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 8.  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,  1.106  and  1.  719  of  the  Commissions 
 rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.141,  0.361,  1.106,  1.719,  the  Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  Sprint  Communications  Company,  on  October  31,  2005,  IS  DENIED. 


 9.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  this  Order  is  effective  UPON  RELEASE. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Monica  S.  Desai,  Chief  Consumer  &  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau 


 18  Petition  at  1. 
 19  Id.  Sprint  has  attached  to  its  Petition  a  copy  of  the  LOA  associated  with  IC  No.  03-  I0048333S  in  what  Sprint 
 claims  is  the  LOAs  original,  legal  size  (i.  e.,  8.5  x  14  paper). 
 20  Id.  at  2.  These  paragraphs  are  titled  Rates  and  Conditions  of  Service  and  Important  Customer  Authorization, 
 Please  Read  Carefully. 
 21  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  1130(  e).  In  relevant  part,  this  section  provides:  At  a  minimum,  the  letter  of  agency  must  be 
 printed  with  a  type  of  sufficient  size  and  readable  type  to  be  clearly  legible  and  must  contain  clear  and  unambiguous  language   


 22  See  n.  19,  supra. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2071 
 4 
 APPENDIX  A 
 INFORMAL  COMPLAINT 
 NUMBER 
 DATE  OF  COMPLAINT  DATE  OF  NOTICE  OF  COMPLAINT  TO  CARRIER 
 FROM  DIVISION 
 DATE  OF  CARRIER 
 RESPONSE 
 03-  I0048333S  July  2,  2003  August  15,  2003  November  11,  2003 
 04-  S86610  April  1,  2004  April  16,  2004  June  30,  2004 
 04-  I0107399S  April  19,  2004  August  27,  2004  September  28,  2004 
 04-  I0129292S  September  22,  2004  December  3,  2004  December  17,  2004 
4