# DA-05-1618: Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (06/09/05): Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1618

## Section

- **Citation:** DA-05-1618: Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (06/09/05)
- **Heading:** Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** FCC Declaratory Rulings / Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

## Text

Federal Communications Commission
DA 05-1618
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier
Selection Changes Provisions of the
)
CC Docket No. 94-129
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Policies and Rules Concerning
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers'
Long Distance Carriers
LEC Coalition Request for Declaratory Ruling
Regarding Carrier Change Verification
DECLARATORY RULING
Adopted: June 8,2005
Released: June 9,2005
By the Acting Chief, Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau:
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.
This Order denies a Petition for Declaratory Ruling regarding the Commission's carrier
change verification rules filed by a coalition of rural local exchange carriers ("LEC Petitioners") on
February 1, 2005.' Specifically, the LEC Petitioners ask the Commission to declare that certain carrier
change verification actions do not violate section 64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission's mles, which
prohibits executing carriers from verifying the submission of a change request by a submitting carrier or
causing an unreasonable delay in the execution of a change.^ For the reasons described below, we deny
the LEC Petitioners' request.
'
Petition for Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 94-129, filed Feb. 1, 2005 (Petition), by 3 Rivers Telephone
Cooperative, Inc., Armstrong Telephone Company Maryland, Armstrong Telephone Company New York,
Armstrong, Telephone Company North, Armstrong Telephone Company Northern Division, Armstrong Telephone
Company Pennsylvania, Armstrong Telephone Company West Virginia, Calaveras Telephone Company, Inc.,
Chester Telephone Company, Chibardun Telephone Cooperative, Inc., Chickasaw Telephone Company, Citizens
Telephone Company of Higginsville, Concord Telephone Company, CTC Telcom, Inc., Darien Telephone
Company, DTC Communications, Egyptian Telephone Cooperative, Five Area Telephone, Hardy Telephone
Company, Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc., HTC Communications, Lackawaxen Telecommunications Services,
Inc., Lockhart Telephone C
ibardun Telephone Cooperative, Inc., Chickasaw Telephone Company, Citizens
Telephone Company of Higginsville, Concord Telephone Company, CTC Telcom, Inc., Darien Telephone
Company, DTC Communications, Egyptian Telephone Cooperative, Five Area Telephone, Hardy Telephone
Company, Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc., HTC Communications, Lackawaxen Telecommunications Services,
Inc., Lockhart Telephone Co., Margaratville Telephone Company, Mid-Century Telephone Company, Mid-Rivers
Telephone Cooperative, Nicholville Telephone Company, Inc., North Central Telephone Cooperative, Inc., North-
Eastem Pennsylvania Telephone Company, Peoples Telephone Company, Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative,
Public Service Telephone Company, Ridgeway Telephone Co., Siskiyou Telephone Company, Smart City Telecom,
Smithville Telephone Company, Stayton Cooperative Telephone Company, TEC Services, Inc., Trumansburg
Telephone Company, Inc., United Telephone Company, Washington County Rural Telephone Cooperative, West
Plains Telephone.
^ See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(a)(2).
10599

Federal Communications Commission
DA 05-1618
II.
BACKGROUND
2.
Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, prohibits any telecommunications carrier from submitting or executing
an unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or
telephone toll service.^ This practice, known as "slamming," distorts the telecommunications market by
enabling companies that engage in fraudulent activity to increase their customer and revenue bases at the
expense of consumers and law-abiding companies
nications carrier from submitting or executing
an unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or
telephone toll service.^ This practice, known as "slamming," distorts the telecommunications market by
enabling companies that engage in fraudulent activity to increase their customer and revenue bases at the
expense of consumers and law-abiding companies. A "submitting carrier" is defined as any
telecommunications carrier that (1) requests on the behalf of a subscriber that the subscriber's
telecommunications carrier be changed; and (2) seeks to provide retail services to the end-user
subscriber.^ An "executing carrier" is defined as any telecommunications carrier that effects a request
that a subscriber's telecommunications carrier be changed.' An executing carrier has actual physical
responsibility for making the change to the subscriber's service.® The Commission has stated that
submitting carriers should be responsible for verification of carrier change requests and, regardless of the
solicitation method used, should employ one of four verification options; written letters of agency
(LOAs), electronic authorization, Internet LOA or third party verification.' Executing carriers may not
engage in additional verification of the submitting carrier's initial verification of a change request, and
may not otherwise cause an unreasonable delay in the execution of the change.®
3.
In April, 2004, MCI filed a series of individual informal complaints against the LEC
Petitioners regarding the rejection of carrier change requests.' MCI alleges that the LEC petitioners were
unduly impeding the carrier change process, and were engaging in a form of additional verification of
carrier changes submitted by MCI." Specifically, MCI asserts that the LEC Petitioners were rejecting
MCI's carrier change submissions when information in the submissions differed from that in the LEC
Petitioners' records." The LEC Petitioners do not dispute these facts
hat the LEC petitioners were
unduly impeding the carrier change process, and were engaging in a form of additional verification of
carrier changes submitted by MCI." Specifically, MCI asserts that the LEC Petitioners were rejecting
MCI's carrier change submissions when information in the submissions differed from that in the LEC
Petitioners' records." The LEC Petitioners do not dispute these facts. The LEC Petitioners, however,
deny that their practices are in violation of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules."
4.
In their Petition, LEC Petitioners set forth three main arguments that their practices do
not violate the Commission's rules. First, they argue that there is no basis in law, including agency law,
for the proposition that a third party (such as an executing LEC) should rely on a claim of authority of a
'
47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
^ See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1100(a); 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 Red 1508, 1564-65, para. 92 (1998) (Second Report and Order).
'
See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1100(b); Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Red at 1565-66, para. 94.
® Id. The Commission also stated that, in the current environment, an IXC could also be an "executing carrier," e.g.,
if a facilities-based IXC resells service to a switchless reseller. See Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Red at 1566,
para. 94.
'
See Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Red at 1567, para. 97; Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection
Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 19%, Third Report and Order and Second Order on
Reconsideration, 15 FCC Red 15996, 16000-16006, paras. 6-18 (2000) (Third Report and Order).
® See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(a)(2).
'
See Informal Complaint file nos. EB-04-MDIC 0003 through 0064, filed March 1, 2004.
See id.
"
See id.
"
Petition at 8
Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection
Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 19%, Third Report and Order and Second Order on
Reconsideration, 15 FCC Red 15996, 16000-16006, paras. 6-18 (2000) (Third Report and Order).
® See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(a)(2).
'
See Informal Complaint file nos. EB-04-MDIC 0003 through 0064, filed March 1, 2004.
See id.
"
See id.
"
Petition at 8.
10600

Federal Communications Commission
DA 05-1618
person who the executing carrier believes to be without authorization.'^ Second, LEC Petitioners contend
that their actions do not constitute reverification in violation of section 64.1120(a)(2).''' Third, the LEC
Petitioners argue that carrier change rejections under these circumstances do not cause "unreasonable
delay" in violation of section 64.112(Xa)(2).'' The LEC Petitioners filed the Petition to clarify issues
related to those complaints.
III.
DISCUSSION
5.
Section 64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that "[a]n executing carrier
shall not verify the submission of a change in the subscriber's selection of a telecommunications service
received from a submitting carrier."'® Based on this rule, we conclude that an executing carrier's
rejection of carrier change submissions by a submitting carrier, based on the executing carrier's own
conclusion that the customer contacted by the submitting carrier was not authorized to make a long
distance carrier change, violates section 64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission's rules.
6.
In the Second Report and Order, the Commission found that "executing carriers.
clude that an executing carrier's
rejection of carrier change submissions by a submitting carrier, based on the executing carrier's own
conclusion that the customer contacted by the submitting carrier was not authorized to make a long
distance carrier change, violates section 64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission's rules.
6.
In the Second Report and Order, the Commission found that "executing carriers.. .have
both the incentive and ability to delay or deny carrier changes."'^ The Commission expressed concern in
the Second Report and Order that executing carriers could use the verification process as a means of
delaying or denying carrier change requests in order to benefit themselves or their affiliates.'® While the
Commission agreed that allowing executing carriers to re-verify carrier change requests could help to
deter slamming, it ultimately concluded that the anti-competitive effects of re-verification outweighed the
potential benefits."
7.
In the Second Report and Order, the Commission was also concerned that re-verification
by executing carriers could function as a: de facto preferred carrier "freeze," even in situations where a
subscriber has not requested such a freeze.^ We believe that the LEC actions at issue here do just this;
they serve to restrict consumer control by eliminating the consumer's ability to designate someone as
authorized to change telecommunications service without first contacting the local carrier.
8.
The LEC Petitioners argue that there is no basis in law, including agency law, to hold that
the executing LEC "has any right to rely on the claim of authority of a person without authorization from
the subscriber and thus no obligation to its subscriber to make changes to the subscriber's account.
This argument fails. The executing carrier may not make an independent determination regarding
whether the person authorizing the switch was an authorized agent of the party identified on the executing
carrier's account
right to rely on the claim of authority of a person without authorization from
the subscriber and thus no obligation to its subscriber to make changes to the subscriber's account.
This argument fails. The executing carrier may not make an independent determination regarding
whether the person authorizing the switch was an authorized agent of the party identified on the executing
carrier's account. The Commission has already defined the role of both the submitting and executing
carrier in a carrier change request. The submitting carrier, in the course of verifying the intention to
"
Id. at 10-14.
"W.
at 14-16.
"W.
at 16-17.
'®47 C.F.R. §64.1120(a)(2).
"
Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rod at 1568, para. 99.
'® See id.
See id.
^
See Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Red at 1568-69, para. 100. A preferred carrier freeze prevents a change in
a subscriber's preferred carrier selection unless the subscriber gives the carrier from whom the freeze was requested
his or her express written or oral consent (Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Red at 1574, para. 112, n. 348).
See id. at 1569, para. 100.
Petition at 12.
10601

Federal Communications Commission
DA 05-1618
change long distance service, is already required to elicit confirmation that the person contacted was
authorized to make the change (that is, an agent of the party identified on the account).^^ That the
name(s) contained in the executing carrier's local account information differs from that of the contact
person listed on the submitting carrier's change is not necessarily indicative of a lack of authority or
agency on the part of the person requesting the long distance change
person contacted was
authorized to make the change (that is, an agent of the party identified on the account).^^ That the
name(s) contained in the executing carrier's local account information differs from that of the contact
person listed on the submitting carrier's change is not necessarily indicative of a lack of authority or
agency on the part of the person requesting the long distance change. The Commission's rules require
that executing carries engage in "prompt execution of changes verified by a submitting carrier."^'*
Moreover, executing carriers are only allowed to use submitted carrier change information to effectuate
the provision of service by the submitting carrier to its customer.^' An independent determination by an
executing carrier of whether the person initiating a switch is an agent of the party listed on the account
goes beyond this limited role.
9.
LEG Petitioners also state that the Commission, in its Third Report and Order, noted
without disapproval that carriers maintain lists of customers authorized to make changes.^® In this vein,
the LEG Petitioners cite several other situations that can result in their return of a carrier change request to
the submitting carrier, such as when a customer is already presubscribed to the submitting carrier, when a
customer has a PIC freeze in place, or when PIC changes are not permitted (e.g., certain college
dormitory rooms).^' We recognize that carriers may access account information in the course of
effectuating carrier changes, and we do not believe that an executing carrier's return of a carrier change to
the submitting carrier, under the limited circumstances described above, constitutes reverification in
violation of our rules. Our objection to the LEG actions at issue is not related to their consulting account
information per se during the course of executing a carrier change. Rather, executing carriers may not
make an independent determination with respect to the ability of a person to authorize a carrier change.
10
, under the limited circumstances described above, constitutes reverification in
violation of our rules. Our objection to the LEG actions at issue is not related to their consulting account
information per se during the course of executing a carrier change. Rather, executing carriers may not
make an independent determination with respect to the ability of a person to authorize a carrier change.
10.
We note that the Commission's preferred carrier change provisions give consumers the
option to "freeze" their choice of telecommunications carrier such that they must then contact their LEG
to lift the freeze before any carrier changes can be effectuated. The LEG Petitioners argue that it is
unreasonable to ask subscribers that wish additional carrier change protections to utilize a preferred
carrier freeze.^® LEG Petitioners state that their method of simply rejecting submitting carrier changes
that contain name(s) that differ from what is in the EEC's account information "poses less of an
impediment to consumers own desire to change carriers."^' We disagree. The Commission's preferred
carrier freeze procedures are not "complex" for subscribers.^ Unlike the "de facto" freeze actions of the
LEG Petitioners, the Commission's preferred carrier change provisions give consumers extra protections
without raising anti-competitive concerns. In addition, because we find that LEG Petitioners' actions
violate the prohibition on verification by executing carriers established in section 64.112(Xa)(2) of the
Commission's rules, we find it unnecessary to reach a conclusion as to whether these actions also result in
unreasonable delay by an executing carrier in violation of our rules.
11.
Finally, the LEG Petitioners request that we consider this petition in conjunction with a
See supra para. 2.
Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Red at 16022, para. 51
g carriers established in section 64.112(Xa)(2) of the
Commission's rules, we find it unnecessary to reach a conclusion as to whether these actions also result in
unreasonable delay by an executing carrier in violation of our rules.
11.
Finally, the LEG Petitioners request that we consider this petition in conjunction with a
See supra para. 2.
Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Red at 16022, para. 51.
See Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Red 5099,
5109, para. 25 (2003).
See Petition at 15-16, citing the Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Red at 16021, para. 50 n.l48.
Petition at 7.
Petition, at 17-18.
''Id.
See id. at n.
10602

Federal Communications Commission
DA 05-1618
petition filed by MCI (MCI Petition) regarding preemption of a state mle.^' The MCI Petition concerns
the question of permissible actions by a state regulatory agency. The Petition, in contrast, concerns the
actions of private companies. We therefore decline the LEC Petitioner's request to combine our
consideration of the Petition with the MCI Petition.
IV.
ORDERING CLAUSES
12.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 258 of
the Communications Act, of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 258 , and sections 0.141,0.361,1.3,
64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141, 0.361, 1.2,64.1120(a)(2), the Rural LECs'
Petition for Declaratory Ruling IS DENIED.
13.
mS
FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 258 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 258 ,
and sections 0.141, 0.361,1.3,
64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141,0.361, 1.2, 64.112(Ka)(2), this Declaratory
Ruling is hereby ADOPTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Monica Desai
Acting Chief
Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau
"
See Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by MCI on Mar. 12, 2004
on 258 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 258 ,
and sections 0.141, 0.361,1.3,
64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141,0.361, 1.2, 64.112(Ka)(2), this Declaratory
Ruling is hereby ADOPTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Monica Desai
Acting Chief
Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau
"
See Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by MCI on Mar. 12, 2004. See also Motion to Hold Proceeding in
Abeyance filed by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia on June 17, 2004.
10603

## Nearby sections

- [DA-00-1341: A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling (06/20/00) A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_00_1341.md)
- [DA-01-2234: Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services (09/26/01) Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2234.md)
- [DA-01-2871: Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan (12/11/01) Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2871.md)
- [DA-02-765: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66 (04/04/02) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_765.md)
- [DA-02-2078: Time-Telepictures Television (08/26/02) Time-Telepictures Television](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_2078.md)
- [DA-03-2865: INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC (09/09/03) INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_2865.md)
- [DA-03-4108: Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration (01/06/04) Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_4108.md)
- [DA-04-970: List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets (04/08/04) List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_970.md)
- [DA-04-3201: Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies (10/06/04) Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3201.md)
- [DA-04-3576: Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 (11/12/04) Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3576.md)
- [DA-05-140: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (01/26/05) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_140.md)
- [DA-05-148: CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS (01/21/05) CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_148.md)
- [DA-05-1618: Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (06/09/05) Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1618.md)
- [DA-05-1667: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (06/15/05) Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1667.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1618. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.