FCC Finds Several Telecom Providers Made Unauthorized Changes to Customers’ Accounts
The FCC granted several complaints about “slamming” -- unauthorized changes to a customer’s telecom service provider -- in a series of orders released Friday. In response to complaints against 14 telecom providers, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau granted nine, denied three, and declared the remainder “resolved.” Most of the granted complaints were against small rural providers, but Frontier was among the telcos accused of insufficiently responding to FCC requests for information, and subsequently found in violation of the rules. A Frontier spokeswoman told us the company “takes all complaints seriously. As such we are investigating the complaint and subsequent ruling."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Section 258 of the Communications Act forbids carriers from changing customers’ preferred local or long distance carrier without first complying with one of the commission’s verification procedures: obtaining a subscriber’s written or electronically signed authorization; getting confirmation from the subscriber via a dedicated toll-free number; or using an independent third party to verify the order.
Some telecom providers admitted their mistake, some tried but failed to get proper third party verification, and some just didn’t respond to FCC requests for information. New Century Telecom blamed a “data entry mistake” that resulted in services switched from Verizon to NCT without authorization, the order said (http://xrl.us/bnfq5b). Matanuska Telephone Association blamed an “error made by an employee” that led to a customer being switched to AT&T (http://xrl.us/bnfq4z). Optic Internet Protocol admitted an employee “erroneously entered Complainant’s telephone number when placing a request for service for another new OIP customer” (http://xrl.us/bnfq5w).
Consumer Telcom said it used a third-party verifier to ask whether the person on the call had “the authority to make changes to your long distance service,” but as the bureau explained, “a switch from one carrier to another carrier differs from merely making changes to the customer’s service,” the order said (http://xrl.us/bnfqyc). Multiline Long Distance’s third-party verifier “failed to obtain separate authorization regarding a switch of intraLATA service, as required by our rules,” the bureau said (http://xrl.us/bnfq4x). Preferred Long Distance said it got third-party verification, but did not provide a copy of the verification as required by the rules (http://xrl.us/bnfq5q). Clear Rate Communications used a third-party verifier, who recited the telephone number “presumably associated with the resident, but did not specifically elicit the telephone numbers to be switched,” the bureau wrote (http://xrl.us/bnfq67).
A Clear Rate spokesman told us the FCC ruled incorrectly. The third-party verifier “asked 3 separate questions confirming ... the switch of services to Clear Rate and this requires a yes answer from the customer to each question. It is clear the customer authorized the change,” the spokesman said. “The FCC focuses on [a] questionable distinction between ‘eliciting the number to be switched’ and ’stating the number to be switched’ as the issue, [of] which we are unsure of the relevancy and given the entire call find it unreasonable. Based on the facts we disagree with the FCC decision."
Then there were the companies that didn’t respond. The Tele Circuit Network never responded to the complaint, which the bureau found was “clear and convincing evidence of a violation” (http://xrl.us/bnfq45). Frontier responded to the FCC’s first inquiry, but the response was not sufficiently “informative,” the bureau said. Frontier failed to follow up within 30 days with more details or proof of third-party verification; the bureau saw this as “clear and convincing evidence of a violation” (http://xrl.us/bnfq5h).
Whatever their excuse, the companies were found liable and must remove all charges incurred for service provided in the first 30 days; and any service provided after the 30-day period must be paid by the subscribers at the rates they were paying when their carrier was changed. Only Frontier and Clear Rate responded to requests for comment.
Verizon, AT&T and the Full Service Network all “responded fully” to the complaints they received, and “fully absolved the Complainant of all charges,” the bureau wrote. Additional complaints against Verizon, CenturyLink and Sprint Nextel were denied, with the bureau finding their actions did not violate the carrier change rules.