Federal Communications Commission DA 09-716
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Business Network Long Distance. 
Complaints Regarding 
Unauthorized Change of
Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IC Nos. 08-S002166
09-S0295157
ORDER
Adopted:  March 27, 2009 Released:  March 31, 2009       
By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1. In this Order, we consider the complaints1 alleging that Business Network Long 
Distance  (BNLD) changed Complainants’ telecommunications service providers without 
obtaining authorization and verification from Complainants in violation of the Commission’s 
rules.2 We conclude that BNLD’s actions did result in unauthorized changes in Complainants’ 
telecommunications service providers and we grant Complainants’ complaints.
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, 
  
1 See Appendix A.
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); 
Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 5099 (2003); 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 10997 (2003).  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 Carriers, 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).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-716
2
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; (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
4. We received Complainants’ complaints alleging that Complainants’ 
telecommunications service providers had been changed to BNLD without Complainants’ 
authorization.11 Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules,12 we notified NSB of the 
complaints and NSB responded.13 In its responses, BNLD stated that authorization was received 
and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs).  We have reviewed the TPVs BNLD 
  
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 See Appendix A.
12 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).
13 See Appendix A.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-716
3
filed with its responses.  Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended 
by the Telecommunications Act of 199614 provides that, “[n]o telecommunications carrier shall 
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 s the 
Commission shall prescribe (emphasis added).15 Section 64.1120(c)(3)(iii) of the Commission’s 
rules specifically requires that all third party verifiers “elicit, at a minimum the identity of the 
subscriber, [and] confirmation that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier 
change…” (emphasis added).  BNLD did not satisfy this procedural requirement when in each 
case, its verifier asked whether the person on the call was “authorized to make changes and/or 
incur charges for that account.”16 The verifier asked, “Are you 18 years old or older and duly 
authorized by the telephone account owner to make changes to and/or incur charges on this 
telephone account?”  A “yes” response by the person on the call does not provide clear and 
convincing evidence confirming that such person was “authorized to make the carrier change” 
because the person on the call could have been confirming authorization only for incurring 
charges.  The possibility of the person on the call only confirming authorization to incur charges 
would not meet the specific procedural requirement that the third party verifier “confirm that the 
person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change.”17 Accordingly we grant 
Complainants’ complaints.18  
5. BNLD must secure the removal of all charges incurred for service provided to 
Complainants for the first thirty days after the alleged unauthorized change in accordance with 
the Commission’s liability rules.19 We have determined that Complainants are entitled to 
absolution for the charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change 
occurred and that neither BNLD nor the authorized carriers may pursue any collection against 
Complainants for those charges.20 Any charges imposed by the authorized carriers on the 
subscribers for service provided after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscribers at the 
  
14 47 U.S.C. § 258(a); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
15 See 47 U.S. C. § 258(a).
16 See Reduced Rate Long Distance, LLC, 24 FCC Rcd 2496 (2009).  In that Order on 
Reconsideration, CGB upheld a Division order which state that a TPV which confirmed that the person on the call 
was authorized to make changes “and/or” incur charges did not satisfy the Commission’s explicit procedural 
requirement that the verification elicit a confirmation that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier 
change.
17 See id.
18 If a Complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution of this complaint, such 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 such 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 such 
Complainant.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.719.
19 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(b).
20 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1160(d).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-716
4
rates the subscribers were paying to BNLD at the time of unauthorized change of 
telecommunications service provider.21  
6. 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 complaints filed against 
Business Network Long Distance ARE GRANTED. 
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 64.1170(d) of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1170(d), Complainants are entitled to absolution for the 
charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and neither 
the Business Network Long Distance nor the authorized carriers may pursue any collection 
against Complainants for those charges.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Nancy A. Stevenson, Deputy Chief
Consumer Policy Division
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
  
21 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-716
5
APPENDIX A
INFORMAL  DATE OF  DATE OF AUTHORIZED
COMPLAINT  COMPLAINT  RESPONSE CARRIER
NUMBER
08-S002166 September 11, 
2008
October 15, 2008 Verizon
09-S0295157 January 29, 2009 February 24, 2009 AT&T